Do Seat-belt Laws Violate The Fourth Amendment?

[Modified]

I'm sure you'll be providing proof of such, right?

OK, it seems we had different interpretations of "the police stopping vehicles for no reason other than to check the drivers' licenses and registrations" and "Yes-----------they can stop you just to see if you have a valid driver's license." I was including checkpoints as "stopping" people. I know they can't pull over individual cars to do so.

 

[AvalonXQ]

If you and your passengers are not secured to your seats, you are not in control of your vehicle and have a far greater chance of losing control in an otherwise managable accident, thus of harming somebody with a more-than-room-temp IQ.

This is actually the claim that I'd like to see evidence of.

Typically the statistics that are used to support seat belt laws involve the injury/survival rate of people wearing seatbelts compared to people not wearing seatbelts.

I would be very interested to see the secondhand injury rates -- that is, evidence that Person A wearing a seatbelt has a statistically noticeable effect on the injury rate of Person B.

You're not the first person to make this argument; has anyone studied whether the predicted secondhand injury decrease is actually realized?

 

[leftysergeant]

This is actually the claim that I'd like to see evidence of.

Typically the statistics that are used to support seat belt laws involve the injury/survival rate of people wearing seatbelts compared to people not wearing seatbelts.

I would be very interested to see the secondhand injury rates -- that is, evidence that Person A wearing a seatbelt has a statistically noticeable effect on the injury rate of Person B.

Okay, I am just speaking from personal experience. In my first accident, in 1965, I wound up under the dashboard while my car was still moving. Crossed the street and hit a stop sign.

Second time seat belts figured in an accident, I was the pump operator on an AS32/P2. The driver was not properly belted in when we started to move. He hit a ditch, bounced off the seat and took out a 1000 GPM fire hydrant.

Also, morons who do not wear their seat belts endanger first responders who might have to rescue them from a burning vehicle. The first crispy critter I saw close-up, a year after I separated from the Air Force, was a man who had been driving a vehicle which caught fire when it collided with another vehicle.

I stopped to take care of a woman trying to get out of the other vehicle. My two room mates (one a police cadet and the other a stoner musician) went right to the burning vbehicle with the only available fire extinguisher.

The man's clothes were on fire, but he wasn't moving because he had busted out the windshield with his head. By the time they could put out the fire on his clothes, it was too late to save him, but they got him out any way.

About that time, the tires started cooking off. I got hit with a piece of flying rubber as I went to help them move him out of danger.

Had he remained conscious, I am sure he would have been able to get out without help.

Stop and think, too, of how thinnly ambulance services get stretched around a city during peak hours. Believe me, they have better things to do than come out and pick up some moron who got knocked even more stupid because he didn't want to bother with a seat belt.

 

[Slimething]

...my ability to make my own dietary decisions is not restricted by the USDA's regulations.

The equivalent to forcing people to wear safety belts would be banning unhealthy foods or requiring people to eat certain foods -- which, as we know from experience, is something people are far more opposed to than mandatory safety belts. There's a difference between allowing consumers to make informed choices, and forcing them to "choose" correctly.

Food and drug regulatory bodies in the US certainly do curtail your choices only you don't realize it because it happens before the point of sale. Try buying a heaping plateful of fugu next time you're out. Still, it happens. For your own good, really. You just can't sell anything in the US for consumption.

Otherwise, point well made. There is a point at which screening out dangerous foods is wise but mandating choices in edible foods would be intrusive.

 

[BadBoy]

in the UK you can do what you want on your own land. But not on the publically paid for roads.

The point here is that the road system is provided for your use as a public service, but has rules and laws governing how people are allowed to use it to make it a safe provision. If you want to build your own highway on your own land and not belt up, I guess then your ok.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Okay, I am just speaking from personal experience.

Unfortunately, personal anecdotes are all I've ever encountered when talking about secondhand injury rates from seatbelt use/non-use. Everyone brings up numbers when discussing firsthand injury rates; why don't we have numbers for secondhand? Especially if we're basing the correctness of seatbelt laws on the prevention of secondhand injuries?

 

[leftysergeant]

Everyone brings up numbers when discussing firsthand injury rates; why don't we have numbers for secondhand? Especially if we're basing the correctness of seatbelt laws on the prevention of secondhand injuries?

Because nobody is bothering to compile a list.

 

[tesscaline]

Unfortunately, personal anecdotes are all I've ever encountered when talking about secondhand injury rates from seatbelt use/non-use. Everyone brings up numbers when discussing firsthand injury rates; why don't we have numbers for secondhand? Especially if we're basing the correctness of seatbelt laws on the prevention of secondhand injuries?

Because the numbers in regards to firsthand injury rates are impressive enough on their own.

And I don't see anyone basing the correctness of seatbelt laws on the prevention of secondhand injuries. What do you mean? Dangers to emergency responders or something?

 

[triforcharity]

I am a little confused what "secondhand injuries" are also. Will you please elaborate?

 

[CORed]

I'm a Rhode Islander (yes, it is a state!) and today our new governor Lincoln Chaffee signed into law the mandatory use of seat-belts.

You should know that here in RI it is perfectly LEGAL to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. That's right, no helmet, on a motorcycle. Yet, we now have a law that will punish you with a $75 fine for not wearing a seat-belt in your car or truck.

I want all riders on buses to be fined, as this law would call for. The law is absurd, and I feel it violates the 4th Amendment. Anyone have thoughts on this?

While I am in general opposed to laws that attempt to protect people from their own stupidity (and that includes seat belt, motorcycle helmet and drug laws), I don't think there is any violation of the Constitution in general or the 4th amendment in particular here.

 

[AvalonXQ]

What I mean by "secondhand injuries" should be clear if you trace my discussion with leftysergeant back a bit.

I'm trying to distinguish between injuries suffered by Person A that would be avoided by Person A wearing a seatbelt ("firsthand injuries"), and injuries suffered by Person A that would be avoided by Person B wearing a seatbelt ("secondhand injuries").

The two major responses to the "personal freedom" argument against seatbelt laws that I have seen on this thread are:

1) If you are injured due to your seatbelt non-use, we pay for your medical care. Society therefore has the right to mandate seatbelt use to reduce the cost to society. This is an argument based on "firsthand injuries".

2) If you refuse to wear a seatbelt, you may lose control of your vehicle and cause others to be injured due to your seatbelt non-use. Society therefore has the right to mandate seatbelt use to reduce the injuries to others. This is an argument based on "secondhand injuries".

My point was in response to the second argument. There are a lot of statistics floating around that show how much more likely you are to be injured if you don't buckle up. Are there any statistics showing how much more likely I am to be injured if you don't buckle up?

 

[tesscaline]

What I mean by "secondhand injuries" should be clear if you trace my discussion with leftysergeant back a bit.

I'm trying to distinguish between injuries suffered by Person A that would be avoided by Person A wearing a seatbelt ("firsthand injuries"), and injuries suffered by Person A that would be avoided by Person B wearing a seatbelt ("secondhand injuries").

Who is this person B? What context are you speaking about person B in?

The two major responses to the "personal freedom" argument against seatbelt laws that I have seen on this thread are:

1) If you are injured due to your seatbelt non-use, we pay for your medical care. Society therefore has the right to mandate seatbelt use to reduce the cost to society. This is an argument based on "firsthand injuries".

2) If you refuse to wear a seatbelt, you may lose control of your vehicle and cause others to be injured due to your seatbelt non-use. Society therefore has the right to mandate seatbelt use to reduce the injuries to others. This is an argument based on "secondhand injuries".

My point was in response to the second argument. There are a lot of statistics floating around that show how much more likely you are to be injured if you don't buckle up. Are there any statistics showing how much more likely I am to be injured if you don't buckle up?

Can you provide a quote for #2? Because I haven't seen that precise claim made in this thread...

 

[AvalonXQ]

See post 121 and post 140 for two examples of arguments that automobile seatbelts are different because if you lose control of your vehicle due to not wearing one, you can injure other people.

Edit: And post 121 was quoting the same argument being made in post 35, so we're talking about an argument that's been in this thread since page 1.

 

[tesscaline]

People are missing the point of seatbelts, and why other people should be interested in whether people are wearing them or not.



Seatbelts and helmets are not analogous, because of the potential range of injury. If someone has an accident without a helmet, they will injure themself. If someone has an accident with no seatbelt, they can potentially kill other people - even people not in the car.

When the law changed in the UK they had some very graphic adverts about back seat passengers crushing those in the front, or going from the back seat through the front window, damaging everyone on the way - including people in front of the car originally protected from the accident by railings, bollards, etc.

This post ^^ uses the example of IF you have an accident AND are not wearing a seatbelt. Which isn't the same as "not wearing a seatbelt can cause you to lose control of your car".

I'll admit, I don't agree that motorcycles are any different. If a motorcyclist has an accident without a helmet, they can potentially kill other people as well. Say, if he was wearing a helmet, he might have been conscious and able to get himself out of the road before another car came along, but if he wasn't wearing a helmet, might not have been conscious, thus stayed in the road, and had an unsuspecting car added to the collision by swerving to avoid hitting him, and into oncoming traffic, the end result (possibly, of course) being a head on collision with another vehicle, killing some if not all occupants of the vehicle. So, helmets are just as important as seatbelts, in my opinion.

Bull flops. Seat belt laws prohibit your doing something stupid that endangers the lives of everyone within a hundred feet of you.

There is no equivalency to prohibiting your eating junk food. More like prohibiting your throwing the garbage out in the alley to attract rats.

If you and your passengers are not secured to your seats, you are not in control of your vehicle and have a far greater chance of losing control in an otherwise managable accident, thus of harming somebody with a more-than-room-temp IQ.
Although it may be better for the species to let the kind of people who do not wear seat belts to eliminate themselves from the gene pool, it is not a good idea to allow them to take out more geneticly fit people along with them. That's why we have traffic laws in the first place.

This post ^^ is not using secondary injury solely to justify the law, but is instead using it to poke holes in the analogy it's responding to, explaining why not wearing seatbelts is not the same as failing to eat healthy, as eating unhealthy harms no one but the person doing the eating, whereas failing to use a seatbelt can potentially harm an innocent bystander (say, by your body hurtling through the windshield and hitting them).

It also is commenting about IF you and your passengers are not wearing seatbelts, then you have a "far greater chance" of losing control of your vehicle. This is patently true, as anyone who's had escape-artist toddlers in the back seat of their car can attest to (how in the heck they get those safety belts off their car seats, I will never know, but damn, kiddos give Houdini a run for his money).

It is also patently true that traffic laws are, by and large, implemented to avoid collateral damage from accidents, not to prohibit idiots from killing themselves. Drunk driving, for example, wouldn't be quite so objectionable if only the drunken fool got hurt. Speeding, also, not a big deal if only the moron going 150mph down a 25mph road got hurt. But when you're talking about motor vehicles, it's never ONLY the person screwing up who gets hurt. Even if there's no actual other person physically injured, there is property damage, cost to the government for emergency services being dispatched, the risk of the emergency service personnel being injured, harm to the economy by losing part of the labor force and having to take over support of the family (potentially) of the hurt/injured imbecile... And these "secondary injuries" are not immediately quantifiable as we're talking about ripples and waves of consequences.

Heck, these ripples of "secondary injury" are pretty much the philosophy behind most public safety laws.

Are there concrete numbers? Perhaps. The NTSA compiles huge reports on the reasons behind, and the results of, traffic accidents. But the people talking about secondary injury are talking about how lack of seatbelt use risks potential secondary harm. Lots of "if" and "could" and "chance of" in their posts. They're not making concrete claims. *shrugs*

 

[AvalonXQ]

Are there concrete numbers? Perhaps. The NTSA compiles huge reports on the reasons behind, and the results of, traffic accidents. But the people talking about secondary injury are talking about how lack of seatbelt use risks potential secondary harm. Lots of "if" and "could" and "chance of" in their posts. They're not making concrete claims. *shrugs*

They seem to be making concrete claims to me -- namely, that we are justified in mandating people wear seatbelts on the grounds that someone in an accident without a seatbelt is a significantly greater danger to others.
If, in fact, not wearing a seatbelt, much like eating red meat, really only increases the risk of an accident for the person not wearing the seatbelt, then I don't really think there's a good argument for mandating it. As you pointed out, generally speaking, safety laws that mandate your behavior are about protecting everyone else from you, not protecting you from yourself.

 

[tesscaline]

They seem to be making concrete claims to me -- namely, that we are justified in mandating people wear seatbelts on the grounds that someone in an accident without a seatbelt is a significantly greater danger to others.
If, in fact, not wearing a seatbelt, much like eating red meat, really only increases the risk of an accident for the person not wearing the seatbelt, then I don't really think there's a good argument for mandating it. As you pointed out, generally speaking, safety laws that mandate your behavior are about protecting everyone else from you, not protecting you from yourself.

But it doesn't only increase the risks of an accident for the person not wearing the seatbelt. Heck, it might not increase the risks of an accident at all (if we're talking about someone alone in their car). However, it can increase the risk of an accident being severe and/or causing more collateral damage than it would have if the person were wearing a seatbelt.

As I said, when we're talking about motor vehicles, it's never ONLY the person screwing up who gets hurt. Never.

 

[AvalonXQ]

But it doesn't only increase the risks of an accident for the person not wearing the seatbelt. Heck, it might not increase the risks of an accident at all (if we're talking about someone alone in their car). However, it can increase the risk of an accident being severe and/or causing more collateral damage than it would have if the person were wearing a seatbelt.

Does it actually do so, to a significant extent? Do we have statistics to back that up?

 

[tesscaline]

Does it actually do so, to a significant extent? Do we have statistics to back that up?

Since you won't give me anything more specific than "secondary injury" I can't get you numbers. You can, however, search for yourself in the NHTSA's FARS database: http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS

There's also http://www.nhtsa-tsis.net/ but some of that requires you be a state employee with approval to access the system. I don't know if you are or not. I'm not (anymore).

Oh, and then there's all the CIREN papers on related subjects http://www.nhtsa.gov/Research/Crash+Injury+Research+(CIREN)/CIREN+Technical+Publications

 

[AvalonXQ]

Since you won't give me anything more specific than "secondary injury" I can't get you numbers.

Haven't we just spent the last half-dozen posts talking about the specifics of "secondary injury"?
The claim appears to be that accidents are made worse if drivers don't wear their seatbelts, because they lose control of their vehicles in ways that seatbelts would have prevented. Do we have evidence for this claim?

 

[tesscaline]

Haven't we just spent the last half-dozen posts talking about the specifics of "secondary injury"?
The claim appears to be that accidents are made worse if drivers don't wear their seatbelts, because they lose control of their vehicles in ways that seatbelts would have prevented. Do we have evidence for this claim?

That claim hasn't been made anywhere, actually. I certainly haven't made it. It seems to be pretty much a strawman.

And I detailed a myriad of "secondary injuries" that you could have been referring to. All the way from someone being hit by a body flying out of a car, to a body on the road causing head on collisions, to endangerment of EMS personnel, and indeed, all the way further to economic damage through having to support the families of idiots who died because they were too dumb to just wear their darned safety belt.

Which one do you want documentation on? Are you denying that any of these situations could be avoided by wearing a seat belt? Are you denying that the "secondary injuries" listed have an impact on the public?

Are you even reading my posts entirely? Because it really doesn't seem like you're really paying attention to what I've said, or what other people in this thread have been saying -- i.e. failing to use seat belts for all passengers in a vehicle increases the danger to yourself, those passengers, and innocent bystanders alike.