Do Seat-belt Laws Violate The Fourth Amendment?

[Slimething]

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.

This. Simple physics. We don't need no stinkin' stats.

 

[Dave Rogers]

That claim hasn't been made anywhere, actually.

It was made, very specifically, by leftysergeant in post #140.

Dave

 

[tesscaline]

It was made, very specifically, by leftysergeant in post #140.

Dave

I quoted that post and explained the difference in what Avalon claimed was said, and what was actually said. Might behoove you to, you know, read the thread.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I quoted that post and explained the difference in what Avalon claimed was said, and what was actually said. Might behoove you to, you know, read the thread.

Sorry, I missed the bit where you changed leftysergeant's claim to support your denial that it had ever been made. It seems fairly clear to me that leftysergeant wasn't merely saying, as you claimed, that children playing in the back of the car can cause an accident; the phrase "losing control in an otherwise managable accident" was a bit of a clue there.

Dave

 

[tesscaline]

Sorry, I missed the bit where you changed leftysergeant's claim to support your denial that it had ever been made. It seems fairly clear to me that leftysergeant wasn't merely saying, as you claimed, that children playing in the back of the car can cause an accident; the phrase "losing control in an otherwise managable accident" was a bit of a clue there.

Dave

Not only can children playing in the back of a car "cause" an accident, but they can exacerbate an otherwise manageable accident, can't they? Or do you think unbelted passengers flying about the inside of your vehicle doesn't affect your ability to control a careening pile of sheet metal? Do you think that unbelted passengers flying around inside a vehicle does not increase the likelihood of "secondary injury"? Do you need some sort of statistical evidence to tell you what is plainly demonstrable through physics? These are not unstudied concepts.

I linked to 3 resources where one can go to find information on whatever various incarnation of "secondary injury" one might imagine. Another article has been linked about the physics of "unsecured objects" during a car crash. So even if someone made the claim that Avalon claims was made (I don't. His wording is too specific. He's missed the point of the statements put forth.), it's already been supported.

So are you HONESTLY objecting to the concept of "unbelted people in moving cars cause damage to more people than just themselves"? Or are you just trolling?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Not only can children playing in the back of a car "cause" an accident, but they can exacerbate an otherwise manageable accident, can't they? Or do you think unbelted passengers flying about the inside of your vehicle doesn't affect your ability to control a careening pile of sheet metal? Do you think that unbelted passengers flying around inside a vehicle does not increase the likelihood of "secondary injury"? Do you need some sort of statistical evidence to tell you what is plainly demonstrable through physics? These are not unstudied concepts.

Strawman. I don't deny any of the above. I'm simply pointing out that it's equally pysically possible that a driver can lose control in the course of an accident due to lack of restraint from a seat belt, making the accident more severe. As was leftysergeant.

So are you HONESTLY objecting to the concept of "unbelted people in moving cars cause damage to more people than just themselves"?

Quite the reverse. I'm pointing out that it has been claimed that there are more possible sources of secondary injury than just those caused by unbelted passengers. Which claim, of course, if substantiated, would strengthen the argument for mandatory seat belt use.

Dave

 

[arthwollipot]

Just as an aside, when mandatory seat belt (and helmet) laws were brought into Australia, there was considerable opposition to them at the time.

People got over it.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I'm not arguing that the just-so story for unbelted drivers exacerbating accidents isn't credible. I'm asking if we have any hard numbers to back it up.
It continues to surprise me how often requests for studies or statistics, if there are any, frustrate people on this forum. You'd think the requests would be seen as appropriate here if anywhere.

 

[arthwollipot]

I have not gone hunting for statistics, nor do I have any idea where to start.

 

[Crossbow]

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?

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 right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

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!

 

[tesscaline]

I'm not arguing that the just-so story for unbelted drivers exacerbating accidents isn't credible. I'm asking if we have any hard numbers to back it up.
It continues to surprise me how often requests for studies or statistics, if there are any, frustrate people on this forum. You'd think the requests would be seen as appropriate here if anywhere.

I've given three resources. If you want hard numbers, you're going to have to be a little bit more specific about which "secondary injury" you'd like hard numbers on. I'm not going on a needle in a haystack search for you only to be told "oh, that's not what I consider a secondary injury". Sorry. Not gonna happen.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I've given three resources. If you want hard numbers, you're going to have to be a little bit more specific about which "secondary injury" you'd like hard numbers on. I'm not going on a needle in a haystack search for you only to be told "oh, that's not what I consider a secondary injury". Sorry. Not gonna happen.

I'm seriously perplexed by your continuing insistance that I define a secondhand injury. How much more clear are you looking for me to be? Can you give me an example of situations that, from what I've described, it is unclear whether or not it would qualify as a secondhand injury?

All I'm looking for is a comparison rate of the injuries of people in accidents based on the seatbelt use of other people in the accidents.

As an example: "Among those in automobile accidents, those wearing seatbelts were 45% less likely to suffer serious injuries." These are the sort of statistics used all the time to prove the firsthand effectiveness of safety belts.

What I'm looking for is something like this: "Controlling for their own seatbelt use, all passengers in vehicles with buckled-in drivers were 20% less likely to suffer serious injuries from an accident."

Or something like this: "Controlling for their own seatbelt use, people in accidents with another vehicle were 31% less likely to suffer serious injuries if the driver of the other vehicle was wearing a seatbelt".

Those are the sort of claims that I believe are being made without concrete evidence to back them up, and that's the sort of evidence I want to see to back those claims up.

 

[tesscaline]

I'm seriously perplexed by your continuing insistance that I define a secondhand injury. How much more clear are you looking for me to be? Can you give me an example of situations that, from what I've described, it is unclear whether or not it would qualify as a secondhand injury?

Yes. I've given numerous examples of things that could qualify as "secondary injury", and yet are all very very different things.

All I'm looking for is a comparison rate of the injuries of people in accidents based on the seatbelt use of other people in the accidents.

As an example: "Among those in automobile accidents, those wearing seatbelts were 45% less likely to suffer serious injuries." These are the sort of statistics used all the time to prove the firsthand effectiveness of safety belts.

What I'm looking for is something like this: "Controlling for their own seatbelt use, all passengers in vehicles with buckled-in drivers were 20% less likely to suffer serious injuries from an accident."

Or something like this: "Controlling for their own seatbelt use, people in accidents with another vehicle were 31% less likely to suffer serious injuries if the driver of the other vehicle was wearing a seatbelt".

Those are the sort of claims that I believe are being made without concrete evidence to back them up, and that's the sort of evidence I want to see to back those claims up.

You're asking for rather interesting statistics. You do realize that controlled studies cannot be carried out on these subjects, right? That the numbers being quoted to you are numbers based upon after the fact analysis of real life accident data, and rely heavily upon self reporting of whether or not a seatbelt was being worn, right? That the vast majority of accidents aren't investigated by professional accident analysis specialists, and that scientists are working off of injury report databases and FARS information to come up with their numbers?

Do you understand that even those numbers being quoted for car crash injury and fatality due to lack of seat belt use are not "hard numbers" but are instead estimations based on past data?

Or that when you see numbers about "45% of serious injuries in car accidents could be avoided by seat belt use", that 45% INCLUDES secondary injury?

I also don't think you understand that secondary injuries being avoided by seatbelt use is not a matter of necessary statistics. It is a matter of the physics of a car crash.

There are three forms of collision during a car accident.
1) The vehicle's collision
2) The human collision
3) Internal collision

The human collision aspect of a crash includes something called "person-to-person impact".

Information on person-to-person impact:
http://floridadrivers.com/safety-belt-use-fact-sheet.html

Another form of human collision is the person-to-person impact. Many serious injuries are caused by unbelted occupants colliding with eachother. In a crash, occupants tend to move toward the point of impact, not away from it. People in the front seat are often struck by unbelted rear-seat passengers who have become high-speed projectiles.

http://www.arizonadriver.com/course_sample.html?p=5

There is also great potential for person-to-person impact. In a crash, occupants tend to move toward the point of impact, not away from it. People in the front seat are often struck by unbelted rear-seat passengers who have become high-speed projectiles. Many serious injuries result from the human collision.

I can quote about 50 other sources for this information, but they all say pretty much the same thing.

Wearing a seatbelt prevents the "human collision" aspect of an accident from happening. This, in and of itself, demonstrates that wearing seat belts reduces secondary injury.

 

[Slimething]

What I'm looking for is something like this: "Controlling for their own seatbelt use, all passengers in vehicles with buckled-in drivers were 20% less likely to suffer serious injuries from an accident."

Or something like this: "Controlling for their own seatbelt use, people in accidents with another vehicle were 31% less likely to suffer serious injuries if the driver of the other vehicle was wearing a seatbelt".

Those are the sort of claims that I believe are being made without concrete evidence to back them up, and that's the sort of evidence I want to see to back those claims up.

I'm not sure why anyone would keep those statistics first-hand. They are of very little value. It would be possible to derive them if there were a database on injuries to all occupants in all vehicles involved in all accidents and whether or not they were using their seatbelts. But why bother? As someone has already pointed out, the benefits of seatbelts in saving lives and minimizing injury is proved well before that. You probably won't find that statistic (or that imagniary database) anywhere.

I've forgotten the point you were trying to make, though. If you doubt that seatbelt use by everyone in the vehicle as well as securement of all loose objects in a the vehicle would reduce risk, you need to go back to Physics 101. It's only common sense. If you believe that a moving vehicle with an incapacitated driver is not bad news, you shouldn't be here. What is your point? Or are you just a statistics junkie?

 

[AvalonXQ]

I've forgotten the point you were trying to make, though. If you doubt that seatbelt use by everyone in the vehicle as well as securement of all loose objects in a the vehicle would reduce risk, you need to go back to Physics 101. It's only common sense.

"Common sense" doesn't tell us whether seatbelt use by drivers of other vehicles has enough of an impact on accident and/or injury rates to overcome the general principle of freedom in society and require seatbelts of drivers.
The default position is that people can do what the heck they want. If you're going to contradict that, we need solid evidence of who is harmed, how much, and how severely.

If you believe that a moving vehicle with an incapacitated driver is not bad news, you shouldn't be here.

And if you can't back up your beliefs with numbers, you have no business imposing them on anything else.

 

[arthwollipot]

According to this document produced by Australian Transport Safety Bureau in 2007, the number of deaths per 10,000 cars (which is a better metric than plain number of deaths due to the increasing number of cars over the period) dropped precipitously after 1970, when the first mandatory seatbelt laws were introduced in Victoria. Between 1950 and 1970, the statistic hovered around 8-9, and it dropped below 7 for the first time in 1972 and has continued to drop despite the huge increase in the number of cars on the road. This is generally considered to be the result of seat belt laws combined with an aggressive road safety campaign.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

......
And if you can't back up your beliefs with numbers, you have no business imposing them on anything else.

The irony it burns......

 

[triforcharity]

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?

Not that I am aware of. As someone else said, I don't think it's useful, because the evidence and statistics that we do have make a great case for wearing your seatbelt versus not, stands completly on it's own.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Not that I am aware of. As someone else said, I don't think it's useful, because the evidence and statistics that we do have make a great case for wearing your seatbelt versus not, stands completly on it's own.

... except that harm to oneself is not a sufficient ground to remove personal liberty. People are allowed to voluntarily engage in behaviors that are risky to themselves; even direct self-harm is generally not illegal.

Harm to others is what is supposed to distinguish not wearing a seatbelt from not prohibiting alcohol or red meat. The argument that others are harmed when I don't buckle up is a much more persuasive argument for making seatbelts mandatory... if we can provide the facts to back it up.

 

[triforcharity]

Driving is a privlidge here in the USA. Not a right.

Case dismissed.