Utah’s new seat-belt law. Big government? Really?

[marincounty]

If you're only interested in the costs of motorcycle accident victims, why hasn't there been a study of the costs of helmeted versus un-helmeted riders?
Maybe no helmet riders die in much larger numbers-requiring less costly hospitalizations?
My problem is the rush to judgement, passing helmet laws with no data, assuming that it will be cheaper with a helmet law.
Many automobile passengers die of head injuries, should we quickly pass a law requiring helmets for auto passengers?

 

[KK]

I'm against legislating safety. Why require seatbelts, but allow motorcycles. If you can step back you'll see how contradictory that is.

 

[nickqt]

I'm against legislating safety. Why require seatbelts, but allow motorcycles. If you can step back you'll see how contradictory that is.

After-the-fact analysis.

Often times, the state legislates safety, and then FreeMarket™, hallow be thy name, implements safety features. Sure, very few if any automobile manufacturer would remove safety belts if the law were revoked, but again, it's years later.

Legislating safety is what states do, because they want to encourage safety. Not just because nanny state freedom-starving liberals want you to lose your freedom, but because it's a lot cheaper to implement a seat belt law that encourages seat belt usage, than it is paying for medical care of people seriously hurt in motor vehicle accidents. It's also why states mandate automobile insurance, not because the mindless state cares about you individually, but because its cheaper than paying for medical care.

Sure, you could argue that the state should just let anyone injured in an accident to just die, but at that point you might as well just argue for the state to stop existing to begin with. Which, of course, you may do.

 

[Spungo]

Don't all modern vehicles start chiming if you go more than a block or two without a seatbelt on?

They really need to turn that shit off. I was with my uncle on his farm, and we were driving around the field to do some work. It doesn't matter if you're driving 20 feet, the truck will bitch at you to put your seat belt on. Do we really need to buckle up for 20 feet when we're moving 5mph with no vehicles around for miles?

What ends up happening is people buckle the seat belt before getting into the vehicle, and they sit on top of the seat belt. That way the truck doesn't annoy everyone when you're frequently jumping in and out of the truck. If people just leave it like that even when they're traveling on roads at high speeds, it's a recipe for disaster.

 

[KK]

They really need to turn that shit off. I was with my uncle on his farm, and we were driving around the field to do some work. It doesn't matter if you're driving 20 feet, the truck will bitch at you to put your seat belt on. Do we really need to buckle up for 20 feet when we're moving 5mph with no vehicles around for miles?

What ends up happening is people buckle the seat belt before getting into the vehicle, and they sit on top of the seat belt. That way the truck doesn't annoy everyone when you're frequently jumping in and out of the truck. If people just leave it like that even when they're traveling on roads at high speeds, it's a recipe for disaster.

You can most likely be able to shut the chime off. I've done it on fords and toyotas.

 

[sandorski]

This is just Obama trying to tie whitey down so he can't run away!!!


Way back in the before time(late 1970's) Seatbelt laws were being passed in these parts. I remember all the complaints about Freedom and discomfort. After a few years no one even thought about it, buckling in was just something one did. I'm surprised there are places without such Laws.

 

[xBiffx]

I'm against legislating safety. Why require seatbelts, but allow motorcycles. If you can step back you'll see how contradictory that is.

Don't look at it as legislating safety. Look at it as mitigating costs, in the public's best interest. Everyone has to pay insurance and that insurance goes up due to accidents. It goes up more if the accidents are more costly. Because of the sheer number of vehicles on the road and number of accidents, seat belt laws serve to lower insurance costs. The same can't be said for motorcycles because they make up only 3% of vehicles on the road.

 

[KK]

Don't look at it as legislating safety. Look at it as mitigating costs, in the public's best interest. Everyone has to pay insurance and that insurance goes up due to accidents. It goes up more if the accidents are more costly. Because of the sheer number of vehicles on the road and number of accidents, seat belt laws serve to lower insurance costs. The same can't be said for motorcycles because they make up only 3% of vehicles on the road.

Who cares they make up 3% of the vehicles out there? When the take up 20% of the passenger vehicle deaths, that means they are 6 times more deadly than automobiles. Its just contradictory to require seatbelts but not ban motorcycles in the public's best interest.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Don't look at it as legislating safety. Look at it as mitigating costs, in the public's best interest. Everyone has to pay insurance and that insurance goes up due to accidents. It goes up more if the accidents are more costly. Because of the sheer number of vehicles on the road and number of accidents, seat belt laws serve to lower insurance costs. The same can't be said for motorcycles because they make up only 3% of vehicles on the road.

there are a million things that could be banned in the public interest - take large sized soft drinks in new york, for example.

at some people you have to let people make a choice. you can keep boxing them in for a little while, but eventually they will push back (i mean that generically, not specifically with regards to seat belts).

 

[MongGrel]

I thought that was already the law in every state since the late 70's!

Utah is way behind the times apparently.

 

[MongGrel]

Just like the broken taillight is an excuse to pull you over, the seatbelt law is another one that will lead to jail for many unfortunates.
The ever creeping list of things to pull you over for and then try and search your vehicle.
God help you if you happen to be a minority and have a wad of cash, doesn't matter if your Grandmother gave it to you, law enforcement will try and take it.
I don't know why more of you don't oppose the increasingly abusive police state?

Just fasten the damned thing, is it that hard ?

30+ years as a firefighter/first responder, responding to many many MVA's. Never had to unbuckle a dead person, found many dead outside the vehicle, under the vehicle, or stuffed under the dash/steering wheel like a sack of broken bones, which pretty much describes their condition.

Stupid people do not wear seat belts.

+1

I've stated many other reasons several times myself.

I'm not going to repeat them again.

Well I will one, my mother died two weeks before my high school graduation back in 1980, no seat belt, was T-Boned, thrown from the car and ended up against a telephone pole with the car on top of her.

I could name many others.

 

[brianmanahan]

Let them die. I'm not going to Utah anyway.

utah is a pretty sweet state though

arches, canyonlands, bryce, zion? it's an amazing combo.

 

[MongGrel]

Came in here to post this. Not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle is FAR more dangerous than not wearing a seat belt in a two ton car, yet the rider's lobby in a ton of states has gotten such laws overturned.

Traumatic brain injuries from cycle accidents are costly and infinitely sad. Many require uber costly care for the rest of their lives. Who pays for that? You and I do, that's who.

Actually I will continue.

I mentioned it in a similar post the other day, my second wife had a Masters in Psychology as a QMRP.

She worked in a head injured adults ward, she took me there a few times and about 99% of the people in it were either bikers injured from no helmets, or no seat belts and injuries from windshield impacts.

I've worn a seat belt every time I start a vehicle up ever since.

 

[MongGrel]

But its okay for the relatively rare occurrence of a non fatal brain injury due to lack of a helmet?

Your ignorance continues to amaze me to be blunt about it.

Is similar to your posts in murder rates, you should stay away from anything stat related period.

You make no sense and seem to have no real grasp of how they work.

 

[Z15CAM]

The seat belt Law has been in effect in Canada for decades. I as a Canadian I can't pick up a parent with kid without strapping the child into an approved $800 Child Container. We are forced to let the parent and child freeze to death on the side of the road without having an approved Child Container and not break the Law.

I say "screw" the HTA Seat Belt Law's in consideration of the circumstances. I'll pay the fine, if charged, but then you loose points and your Insurance rate goes up for the infraction.

 

[MongGrel]

You aren't reading, are you? The answer was just posted, in a response to you no less.

 

[Z15CAM]

Believe when I say where I've been I've been in a motor vehicle accident and wearing a Seat Belt, I would have died.

Depends on the angle of impact whether or not a Seat Belt is advantageous but for percentage sake on survival in the event of an accident, I would choose a Seat Belt / Air Bags and that's the way the HTA and Insurance Co's tend to address.

 

[Spungo]

Depends on the angle of impact whether or not a Seat Belt is advantageous.

It's hard to imagine a scenario where wearing a seat belt would do more harm than good.

Anyway, it's not about safety. The real issue is about whether or not the nanny state is going too far. Deep down, I don't think seat belts should be required. If you want to kill yourself, that's your right. Who am I to say that people are not allowed to drive without seat belts or not allowed to sky dive or not allowed to ride motorcycles. I would never ride a motorcycle, but some people think it's an acceptable risk to take. Should we ban motorcycles?

 

[feralkid]

God that made me laugh!

Thanks!

 

[xBiffx]

Who cares they make up 3% of the vehicles out there? When the take up 20% of the passenger vehicle deaths, that means they are 6 times more deadly than automobiles. Its just contradictory to require seatbelts but not ban motorcycles in the public's best interest.

Again, its not about safety, its about money. Seatbelts save more money for the fast majority of the public where as banning motorcycles or requiring helmets pales in comparison. It's about insurance i.e. money, not about keeping people safe. Insurance doesn't keep you safe (from injury at least).

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Who in the world doesn't wear a seatbelt?! Why would you willingly nominate yourself for the Darwin Awards?

The same reason you would ride a motorcycle?

Whatever the case, I don't see the problem with not wearing a seat belt. It's not like it has anything to do with the other person/driver if you get into a wreck with someone. Your body isn't going to fly out the windshield, hit the other driver of the other car and kill them from it.

It's more of a "We want to protect our tax payers.... so they continue to pay taxes" law. I religiously wear my seat belt - that doesn't mean I don't support someone else that wants to win a Darwin award.