Do Seat-belt Laws Violate The Fourth Amendment?

[AvalonXQ]

Provide evidence that failing to wear a seatbelt harms other vehicles, and I (and many others) will support the law on that basis.*

Provide only evidence that failing to wear a seatbelt harms the person making that decision, and I (and many others) will fail to support the law on the basis that a citizen can make his own decisions about acceptable and unacceptable levels of risk.

It's that simple.



*And incidentally, I do support seatbelt laws on that basis -- I simply acknowledge that I have no concrete evidence to back up my belief that seatbelts protect others.

 

[Agatha]

This is a UK road safety ad showing that a person wearing a seatbelt can be killed by a person who is not, which I understand is what you are asking, Avalon? I am sure that with some googling I can find some statistics - our government is unlikely to have made this advert unless there was hard evidence that this is a problem. I don't have time to chase the statistics down now but I'll try to do so later on this evening.

Like many of our road safety adverts, it's quite graphic and if you aren't used to our ads, it's probably NSFW.

 

[tesscaline]

Provide evidence that failing to wear a seatbelt harms other vehicles, and I (and many others) will support the law on that basis.*

Provide only evidence that failing to wear a seatbelt harms the person making that decision, and I (and many others) will fail to support the law on the basis that a citizen can make his own decisions about acceptable and unacceptable levels of risk.

It's that simple.



*And incidentally, I do support seatbelt laws on that basis -- I simply acknowledge that I have no concrete evidence to back up my belief that seatbelts protect others.

Your definition of "harm" is the problem. You seem to be limiting that harm only to direct physical harm to another present person. Not wearing seatbelts, and injuring yourself from it, harms society.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811140.PDF

ETA: I also think it's really annoyingly obtuse of you to deny the harm to others in your vehicle, or outside your vehicle, by you not wearing a seat belt. This is basic physics. You do not need "statistics" for this evidence. We have actual science to back up the claim.

 

[Arus808]

I don't think it is unconstitutional but I do think it is dumb. If people want to be dumbasses and increase their chances of dying in a car crash, no skin off my back.

however, its through everyone else's insurance premiums that pay for that idiot's mistake.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. You follow all the laws or else do not drive.

Seat belts are required by law, so wear them, or risk getting fined.

simple really

 

[AvalonXQ]

Your definition of "harm" is the problem. You seem to be limiting that harm only to direct physical harm to another present person. Not wearing seatbelts, and injuring yourself from it, harms society.

Unfortunately, that same argument could be used to make alcohol and red meat illegal, to prohibit sky-diving or baseball, and essentially to allow the government to determine the acceptable level of risk in every area of our lives.

Direct harm to others (and by that I explicitly mean more than "harming yourself always harms others") is necessary to justify making something illegal. The default position is liberty; taking away liberty requires justification, and that justification has to be more than an adult being harmed by their own informed choices.

A society where the government can limit your behavior "for your own good" is no longer a liberal society.

 

[tesscaline]

Unfortunately, that same argument could be used to make alcohol and red meat illegal, to prohibit sky-diving or baseball, and essentially to allow the government to determine the acceptable level of risk in every area of our lives.

Direct harm to others (and by that I explicitly mean more than "harming yourself always harms others") is necessary to justify making something illegal. The default position is liberty; taking away liberty requires justification, and that justification has to be more than an adult being harmed by their own informed choices.

A society where the government can limit your behavior "for your own good" is no longer a liberal society.

Um. Your slippery slope is well noted. However, there are lots and lots of things that we do for the protection of society instead of the protection of just the individual. Prohibiting drunk driving, for example -- the drunk isn't the one who gets hurt, other people and property are. Prohibiting smoking in public buildings isn't done for the safety of the smoker, it's done for the benefit of the non-smokers around them. Prohibiting illegal drug use isn't just done because of the impact upon the individual using the drugs, but also because of the impact that user has upon the people and economy around them. And then there are things like the banning of trans-fat that NYC and California has done "for the benefit of the public". Yes, our government acts (whether I agree with those actions or not -- there are many I don't) for the benefit of society as a whole, not just the interests of the individual. And that's how it's supposed to be.

Risks are weighed, and quantified, and measured. The probability of an unbelted person being in a vehicular accident, combined with the severity of the possible end result of being unbelted in that vehicular accident, is far far greater risk than the probability of someone eating a single steak, and the severity of the end result of eating that single steak. Period.

Your analogy about unhealthy eating is ridiculously inane. You need to realize that. Eating a single steak will not kill a person. A single car ride without a seat belt can not only kill that single person, but can also result in the deaths and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property damage.

It's called a risk management assessment. You might want to learn how to do one before you start throwing out even more ridiculous analogies and excuses as to why it's stupid for the gov't to have seat belt laws. I even linked you to a NHTSA report about said risk management assessment (they call it an economic impact study, by the way). Did you read it? I'm guessing not...

 

[LashL]

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.

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

Lots of stats listed, but here are a couple most relevant to this particular point:

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.

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.

 

[Slimething]

"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.

1. It matters not a whit whether or not you have such evidence. The primary question has been resolved. Seat belts save lives and prevent injury. Two birds meet the stone.
2. Please back up the "general principle of freedom in society". Where do you find this principle? Where did you hear of it? Me no buy.

The default position is that people can do what the heck they want.

Nope. Sorry. That is not the default position. If you disagree, back it up with statisics.

If you're going to contradict that, we need solid evidence of who is harmed, how much, and how severely.

You're making the claim now, counselor. Get to provin'.

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

Bull. I can't produce numbers of the number of people hurt by the bodies of people who land on them while trying to commit suicide by leaping. I can impose preventive ordinances and prevent access to certain high places. See the similarity yet?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Nope. Sorry. That is not the default position.

It is in a liberal democracy, by definition.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

And where might this ' Liberal Democracy ' be found ?

 

[Slimething]

And where might this ' Liberal Democracy ' be found ?

This.

Please humor us, AXQ. Any US Federal law document, especially the US Constitution, will do. Thanks in advance!

ETA: Evasions of other points in my posts noted, BTW. Thanks.

 

[tesscaline]

And where might this ' Liberal Democracy ' be found ?

I'd like to know the answer to this question too.

You can't possibly be speaking of the USA, that's for sure...

 

[AvalonXQ]

*sigh* I'm not saying anything that isn't found in any good first year political science textbook.

A "liberal" government is one in which individual freedom is recognized as the default, and infringements on that freedom have to have some recognized basis. In classical liberalism, "social contract" was often used as the basis for giving government any power at all.

A "democratic" government is one in which governmental power is exercised directly or indirectly by the people being governed.

Most Western countries are liberal democracies. That means that laws require a good reason to infringe someone's freedom, and the government must be answerable to its citizens.

You'll find the democratic principle expressed in the rules for elections in the U.S. Constitution, and the liberal principle expressed throughout the Constitution and founding documents but most specifically expressed in the Tenth Amendment. It's the very foundational concept of a government with limited powers. We don't restrict individual freedoms "just because"; we need a good reason.

It is heartbreaking that Americans or Europeans actually have to have this explained to them.

 

[TjW]

This.

Please humor us, AXQ. Any US Federal law document, especially the US Constitution, will do. Thanks in advance!

ETA: Evasions of other points in my posts noted, BTW. Thanks.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

My bolding, of course.

And if I'm not interpreting that correctly, what is the default position?

 

[AvalonXQ]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

My bolding, of course.

And if I'm not interpreting that correctly, what is the default position?

For folks who have grown up in the modern nanny state, the default position is that the government should control people in any way that will make people's lives better.

People have almost forgotten minimal government as a goal, or what the term "liberty" even means. Pro tip -- if you're not free to make bad decisions and believe wrong ideas, you're not free!

 

[Slimething]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Your interpretation of that part of the portion of the Consitution is that, lacking a Federal law, one is left with the right to do anything? Am I correct in that?

I believe that sentence means that authority not proscribed to the Federal goverment is left to the states. To some a subtle difference but a difference nonetheless.

And if I'm not interpreting that correctly, what is the default position?

The default position is that a citizen is expected to observe all laws of the US, states and holdings. You have the rights given to you under the Constitution of the US and its states. No more, no less.

"I can do anything because there is no relevant law." is a fantasy that can only be found in the imagination of people not trained in law.

 

[Slimething]

*sigh* I'm not saying anything that isn't found in any good first year political science textbook.

I'm not at all interested in hand-waving. You have rested your entire argument on this fantasy. Back it up or give it up.

For folks who have grown up in the modern nanny state, the default position is that the government should control people in any way that will make people's lives better.

You live in a fantasy. To bolster it, you've deluded yourself into believing that you have special insight into how the US / "liberal democracies" should be or how the rest of us should live our lives. The "nanny state" whine is heard only from people who don't get their way all the time.

Pro tip -- if you're not free to make bad decisions and believe wrong ideas, you're not free!

Seems you made a bad decision foisting an unsupportable claim. Therefore, you're free.

 

[Earthborn]

In classical liberalism, "social contract" was often used as the basis for giving government any power at all.

Classical liberalism isn't the only political philosophy that had an influence on the way democracies work. All the other philosophies have left their mark as well.

We don't restrict individual freedoms "just because"; we need a good reason.

Citizens not flying through windshields is a pretty darn good reason. I can't think of a better reason to restrict a freedom than making people live another day to enjoy all their other freedoms.

 

[TjW]

Your interpretation of that part of the portion of the Consitution is that, lacking a Federal law, one is left with the right to do anything? Am I correct in that?

I believe that sentence means that authority not proscribed to the Federal goverment is left to the states. To some a subtle difference but a difference nonetheless.



The default position is that a citizen is expected to observe all laws of the US, states and holdings. You have the rights given to you under the Constitution of the US and its states. No more, no less.

"I can do anything because there is no relevant law." is a fantasy that can only be found in the imagination of people not trained in law.

No. I agree that one should follow applicable state and federal laws.
But what is the default position regarding actions that do not have applicable federal, state or local laws?
If the authority not proscribed to the Federal government is left to the state governments only, why explicitly include the phrase 'the people'?

 

[Slimething]

But what is the default position regarding actions that do not have applicable federal, state or local laws?

Can you think of such a situation that we encoutner in everyday life? Most, if not all of our actions are related to topics that are covered in some part by laws. In the case of seat belt law, it's a non-starter. In this case, the governeing body would be the state because the Federal government can only control interstate issues, not intrastate issues such as traffic safety.

Moreover, both Federal and state governments have claimed the authority to legisiate the public welfare. It's too late to challenge that power as now there is a long history of such laws that have worked and are deemed necessary by the courts. I've pointed out to Avalon previously that what he considers to be unregulated (food choice) is not entirely so. A lot of public protection activity is hidden from the consumer because it occurs before the point of sale.

So, if you can think of a human activity in the US that is not related to a body of law or a power not already claimed by the state to regulate if it were to choose to, I'd love to explore that. Otherwise, the battle over silly things like seat belt laws was lost before the first challenge was voiced. See here.

If the authority not proscribed to the Federal government is left to the state governments only, why explicitly include the phrase 'the people'?

Because the people can change the constitution so that the government would be forced to change the objectionable practice. Or that's the theory anyway.