N.H. Seat belt law

[Stephen]

OK, so everyone knows that I tend to have Conservative viewpoints on issues. In general I usually fall on the side of the issue that results in less government involvement and regulation.

However, I believe there is a public interest involved here. My insurance rates (health, auto) go up whenever some moron get's ejected from a rollover and lands in ICU when we would have had a broken rib or two had he been wearing a seatbelt.

So, surprisingly I'm finding myself falling on the side of veing in favor of a seat belt law, much to the angst of my uber-conservative and libertarian friends.

Do I need to be saved from the path of Hell? :lol:

-Stephen

 

[hammer]

Here's a question: If there is a seat belt law, and you're involved in an accident where the other person wasn't wearing his/her seat belt and you get sued, can they get a settlement for medical bills etc. for injuries that would not have been sustained if he/she was wearing a seat belt?

I'm all for seat belt laws (primary, meaning that the police can issue you a citation solely not for wearing one), but the only way that seat belt laws can have teeth is if they're followed up by liability limitations if you choose not to wear one anyway.

I also feel the same way about motorcyclists wearing helmets. If NH motorcyclists truly don't want to wear a helmet, fine, but if I get into an accident with you then don't come crying to me about head injuries that you wouldn't have sustained if you were wearing a helmet.

Personal responsibility works both ways...

 

[Charlie Schuessler]

...that I tend to have Conservative viewpoints on issues. In general I usually fall on the side of the issue that results in less government involvement and regulation....Do I need to be saved from the path of Hell...

Which side of your brain are you thinking with LEFT or RIGHT? :wink:

NH news media outlets are stating studies that more than 60% of surveyed motorists wear a seatbelt anyway. Where all automobles and trucks are manufacturerd with passenger restraint systems, it only makes sense to require the passengers wear them for safety. Am I'm thinking with my right side...or is it left.... :wink:

 

[Max]

Am I'm thinking with my right side...or is it left.... :wink:

LOL Charlie...depends if you are facing us or the other way!

 

[Vortex]

Kids should have seat belts, Kids should have helmets. When one becomes an adult I favor free choice. I do wear a seat belt.

 

[smitty77]

I voted "yes" because I ultimately pay for someone not wearing a belt that is involved in a crash through increased insurance rates. I wear one all the time, even if I'm not required to. Working on a rescue squad, I've seen too much needless pain and suffering caused by unrestrained passengers.

I like Connecticut's way of enforcing the seat belt laws. Park 2 or 3 troopers on an off ramp, standing out of their cars on the shoulder. They get a good look at you as soon as you leave the interstate and wave you over if they don't see that belt across your chest. Saw 4 cars with CT tags get waved over in front of me, yet the guy with MA tags (me) gets waved on by. Sweet.

 

[pedxing]

How is this for a quasi-Libertarian solution?

People must desginate themselves "seat-belt optional" drivers when they get their license (the same way corrective lenses or organ donation gets noted on the license) and pay "seat-belt optional" rates on insurance for injury to self to cover all medical payments. Health inusrance would not pay for people who are hurt in car accidents. No matter who was at fault for the accident, the person who was unbelted is "at fault" for their own physical injuries. Seatbelts would still be mandatory for minors.

It would probably never pass, but I'd vote for it over mandatory seatbelts. I'd vote for mandatory seatbelts over nothing at all.

 

[pedxing]

I'm glad to see my idea makes some sense to you. The other thing I like about the idea is that people who didn't pay the "belt optional" insurance and were fined for not wearing seatblets would be fined for not abiding by an agreement they had knowingly made (I guess there would have to be a box to check).

While not a Libertarian, I think freedom is important and that there is a hidden cost to any legislation. With new development and construction, builders are required to file an environmental impact statement. The idea is that along with the immediate economic benefits, environmental costs should be figured in. I think that with every new law, we need to think carefully about the enforcement costs (monetary and human) and the impact on human freedom. When ever something is outlawed or mandated, the government has to monitor compliance, invesitgate non-compliance and use some level of force to punish non-compliance. Even if there is only a reward for compliance, people needed to be sanctioned if they fake it (for example, if we offer business incentives for pollution reduction, we have to punish companies who lie about their pollution levels to get the incentives) . And there are subtler costs to new mandates and prohibitions as well.

Thus, I agree with Stephen's approach - don't reject new regulations out of hand, or embrace them just because they aim to acheive something good, but weigh the cost in freedom against the benefits and then decide.

I also agree with Uphill and others that freedom and responsibility (which for me includes accountability) are key, and that the two should go together.

Gee - that was a lot more llong winded than I had intended.

 

[Stephen]

Thus, I agree with Stephen's approach

Gee - that was a lot more llong winded than I had intended.

Well, you were agreeing with me at the end... so it was worth it! :lol:

-Stephen