Do Seat-belt Laws Violate The Fourth Amendment?

[AvalonXQ]

I'm sure you're one of those who dreams of low voter turnout so that you, finally, will get your candidate elected.

This is about the fifth statement you've made that's characterizing me rather than addressing my arguments. That's inappropriate; you should stop that.

 

[Arus808]

I haven't budged an inch. If you insist on arguing with me, argue with the positions I'm actually putting forward rather than your strawmen.

It would help that you stop using strawmen to defend your position.

 

[George 152]

They don't want to use safety harness in cars do they also refuse to do the same in aircraft ?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Could you elaborate ?

 

[RhodyDave]

I do not know if you are still interested in this issue or not, but on the chance that you are still interested, then here goes my reply ...

To start, I think that one should look at the Fourth Admendment which is:



The key word in there is "unreasonable".

And as was previously pointed out, if something is in plain view (such as person who is not wearing a seat belt), then it is prefectly legal for the authorites to act on that information since a reasonable search was made, and therefore that search was legal.

Therefore, your concerns about a manadatory seat belt law being unconstitutional are quite incorrect.

I hope this helps!

Yes, Thank you. I get it - There is no 4th Amendment issue. Thanks to all who posted to clear this up for me, I get it. I appreciate the way most people here have responded. However some of the replies have leaned more toward personal attack than civil discourse. Interesting to me that simply by raising an issue for discussion some people ( not Crossbow, and most others) take it as an opportunity to promote their perceived superiority. Whatever.

I agree, this isn't unconstitutional. Fine. I still don't like the implementation of mandatory "common sense" laws, because I do believe in the slippery slope concept, even if to this point in time it hasn't been a problem.

Once again to reiterate, I am in FAVOR of wearing seat-belts and helmets and not smoking and eating sensibly and being kind to others and not forgetting your wife's birthday and all that. I just don't think we should be legislating common sense.

But thank you for your responses and attempts to discuss this intelligently and maturely.

 

[triforcharity]

Protecting adults from themselves is not a proper objective of government regulation.


... which they should be permitted to do...

... which is an appropriate target of government regulation.


My protest in town square, or controversial novel, can affect thousands of people. The question is whether it causes direct harm to others' persons or property. If not, then leave adults alone to do as they choose.

So, you didn't read the stuff that LashL posted, did you? Imagine that.

Here it is, since you apparently missed it.

http://www.jmu.edu/safetyplan/vehicle/generaldriver/safetybelt.shtml

In a 30 m.p.h. collision an unbelted 160 lb. person can strike another passenger, crash through a windshield and/or slam into the vehicle's interior with a 4,800 lb. force.

And this one too

A common cause of death and injury to children in motor vehicles is being crushed by adults who are not wearing safety belts. One out of four serious injuries to passengers is caused by occupants being thrown into each other.

Yeah, I think that you lost on this, no matter how much you scream and pout about liberal nanny laws and such.

You also seem to be forgetting about this part too.
"Driving a vehicle in the USA is not a right, it is a privledge)

Yeah, game over.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Yeah, game over.

I'm glad you feel you "won" your game. Some of the rest of us were trying to have a discussion.

Now that you've decided you've "won" and I've "lost", you'll take your game elsewhere and let the rest of us discuss, would you?

 

[Arus808]

why you haven't brought anything to table except strawman arguments.

 

[triforcharity]

Why don't you address the post and the evidence posted within the post, instead of trying (futile as it was) to attack me.

So, will you discuss the evidence presented in the post?

(Credit to LashL for actually finding it.)

Or, will you continue to call the US a "liberal nanny state"?

 

[Slimething]

This is about the fifth statement you've made that's characterizing me rather than addressing my arguments. That's inappropriate; you should stop that.

NO.

You state that you don't question the constitutionality of seatbelt laws yet you accuse the government of being a nanny state. The only possible conclusion is that the US Constitution defines a nanny state. If so, you should move away.

Why don't you back up your statements? What is this dreamland "liberal democracy" that you've based your objections on? Has it ever existed? Does it exist now anywhere on the planet?

You live in a fool's paradise. Population: 1.

 

[arthwollipot]

I can't think of a better phrase to describe government regulation designed to control our lives for our own good rather than the good of others...

False dichotomy. Can't regulation be both? For the good of everybody?

...or the attitude that government should "take care of us" rather than facilitating our abilities to take care of ourselves.

Humans are demonstrably incapable of taking care of themselves. This is the Libertarian Fallacy - that when left to their own devices, people will tend to act for the good of all. It's rubbish. Utter rubbish. When left to their own devices, people will act selfishly and utterly without regard for others.

Do you believe that there are no regulations or attitudes that actually fit this description, or is it that you agree with those regulations and attitudes and therefore oppose language calling it out?

Your question is, more or less, meaningless. There is a spectrum, a continuum, with complete anarchy at one end (where government makes no laws), and totalitarianism at the other (where everything is controlled by government). The so-called 'ideal society' lies somewhere along this continuum. Trying to force everything to one end or the other is, again, a false dichotomy. Your question about 'are there no regulations that fit this description' is trying to force every possible situation into a single pigeonhole.

Hey, I'm a liberal but have never used the term Nanny state (and I also think the term is rather stupid). Don't be painting with a broad brush here.

Hey, I said libertarian, not liberal. There's a very big difference. I am a liberal, but I am absolutely not a libertarian.

 

[Earthborn]

When left to their own devices, people will act selfishly and utterly without regard for others.

More relevant to AvalonXQ's claims: people will often act utterly without regard for themselves. That's because people are notoriously bad at estimating probabilities and risks. They may try hard to avoid very small risks, and at the same time unthinkingly take huge other risks. The risks in a modern technological society are unfortunately not all that obvious and easy to understand; adults rarely understand them that much better then children.

I see nothing wrong with trying to protect people from risks that they would likely not accept if they fully understood what those risks were. If that makes me a fascist, so be it.

 

[Crossbow]

Yes, Thank you. I get it - There is no 4th Amendment issue. Thanks to all who posted to clear this up for me, I get it. I appreciate the way most people here have responded. However some of the replies have leaned more toward personal attack than civil discourse. Interesting to me that simply by raising an issue for discussion some people ( not Crossbow, and most others) take it as an opportunity to promote their perceived superiority. Whatever.

I agree, this isn't unconstitutional. Fine. I still don't like the implementation of mandatory "common sense" laws, because I do believe in the slippery slope concept, even if to this point in time it hasn't been a problem.

Once again to reiterate, I am in FAVOR of wearing seat-belts and helmets and not smoking and eating sensibly and being kind to others and not forgetting your wife's birthday and all that. I just don't think we should be legislating common sense.

But thank you for your responses and attempts to discuss this intelligently and maturely.

Thanks much for the clarification!

That was very decent of you and please have a good day.

 

[tesscaline]

But I have said -- repeatedly now -- that protecting someone from harming herself is an improper basis for a law.

You need to demonstrate that this IS the basis for the law now. You keep saying it is, with NO evidence of such, and despite evidence of the contrary being provided. So it's your turn now. Give us evidence that the reason for seatbelt laws is "to protect someone from harming themselves", and not "to keep someone from creating unnecessary harm and burden on the rest of society".

 

[AvalonXQ]

NO.

Okay.

 

[AvalonXQ]

You need to demonstrate that this IS the basis for the law now. You keep saying it is, with NO evidence of such, and despite evidence of the contrary being provided. So it's your turn now. Give us evidence that the reason for seatbelt laws is "to protect someone from harming themselves", and not "to keep someone from creating unnecessary harm and burden on the rest of society".

Would it be enough to show that, when statistics are brought up in support of a safety belt law, they consistently show reduced chance of injury based on buckling up and not reduced chance of someone else being injured? That is to say, if examples make it clear that state transportation websites and congressmen use "reduced fatalities due to seatbelt" and "reduced rate of injury when people buckle up" as the primary facts supporting seatbelt laws, we're talking about reducing self-harm?

 

[tesscaline]

Would it be enough to show that, when statistics are brought up in support of a safety belt law, they consistently show reduced chance of injury based on buckling up and not reduced chance of someone else being injured? That is to say, if examples make it clear that state transportation websites and congressmen use "reduced fatalities due to seatbelt" and "reduced rate of injury when people buckle up" as the primary facts supporting seatbelt laws, we're talking about reducing self-harm?

No. Especially since it's been demonstrated that "the statistics brought up" are not limited in the way you state.

 

[AvalonXQ]

False dichotomy. Can't regulation be both? For the good of everybody?

I think I understand your point. Applying it to seatbelt laws, we can note that seatbelts prevent firsthand and secondhand injury, and therefore seatbelt laws are good either way. I agree with that.
My issue is a simple one -- I don't agree with safety laws to limit/prevent self-harm, and so it is important to me to de-aggregate* the self-harm argument from the others-harm argument.

I really like the others-harm argument with respect to seat belts because I think it's accurate, but I also feel it's terribly under-supported relative to the self-harm argument. It's very frustrating to me to see so much time spent on questions that are, to many libertarian-types, beside the point.

But I very much do thank LashL for coming up with a source of evidence I never considered, which is injury to fellow passengers (and particularly to child passengers) due to non-seatbelt use. If nothing else, this would strongly support legislation that requires not only child restraints but also the use of safety belts by adults when children are in the car.

And for what it's worth, my car doesn't move from park until all my passengers are buckled (which actually goes beyond the requirements of the law of my state).

*(Heh. Inside joke.)

 

[AvalonXQ]

No.

Well, that's the best I can do, because that's the evidence I actually see. Seatbelt advocates are pretty straightforward in saying "this law will save X lives a year" or "this law will prevent Y serious injuries a year". Or even, "M percent of adults don't use seatbelts, and N fatalities last decade were associated with non-buckled passengers".

When these statistics are bandied about, they're based on the simple question of "among accidents/fatalities, who was buckled in and who wasn't?"

Adult seatbelt laws are pretty clearly passed on the basis of statistics that primarily calculate self-harm; child seatbelt laws are primarily based on the statistics of harm to children. A lot of passed laws cover both.

 

[tesscaline]

Well, that's the best I can do, because that's the evidence I actually see. Seatbelt advocates are pretty straightforward in saying "this law will save X lives a year" or "this law will prevent Y serious injuries a year". Or even, "M percent of adults don't use seatbelts, and N fatalities last decade were associated with non-buckled passengers".

When these statistics are bandied about, they're based on the simple question of "among accidents/fatalities, who was buckled in and who wasn't?"

Adult seatbelt laws are pretty clearly passed on the basis of statistics that primarily calculate self-harm; child seatbelt laws are primarily based on the statistics of harm to children. A lot of passed laws cover both.

Evidence? I've linked NUMEROUS statements from the NHTSA, that are backed up by other studies, that directly contradict your statements here.

I'm getting very VERY tired of you ignoring those reams of evidence, and sticking with your undocumented, unevidenced, line of of "reasoning" (I put that in quotes, because it's very clearly NOT reasoned).

Put up, or shut up.