Seat Belts, or, A Frame Unbuckled from the Issue

Another example (4.00 / 1)

of NH cutting off its nose to spite its financial face. NHPR reported recently the state voluntarily gives up 3.5 million dollars in federal highway money for lack of a seatbelt law. Remember that the next time the same rep talks about how the state in unable to afford basic services. The ghost of Meldrim Thomson haunts the state's highways.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 05:59:08 AM CST

Work On The State Senate (4.00 / 1)

We have excellent Democrats in the NH State Senate, and that's where the battle next goes. They have to say "yes" and New Hampshire makes money!  Plus lives are saved.

This isn't more regulation, or an example of Nanny State craziness.  Seat belts are a part of the vehicle.  You can't "decide" not to use your windshield wipers -- your windshield must be clear of snow, etc.  You can't "decide" to use bald tires.  

Good tires and use of windshield wipers save lives.  So do seat belts.  As Dean says, your chances of not dying in a crash increase.  I guess that's why race car drivers do it.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 06:17:07 AM CST

I vote for it... (4.00 / 2)

I voted for it, but I understand the concerns about a "primary" seat belt law.... i.e., the cops can pull you over just for having your seatbelts off.  The bill would indeed add one more item to the long list of offenses (real or imagined) which can lead to a traffic stop.  But I still think the bill was a good idea... unbelted drivers are a danger not just to themselves but to others.  

The cops can in any case always find some pretext to pull someone over if they feel like pulling them over.  I am not sure whether adding or subtracting a pretext makes much of a difference.

-----

Thanks for all the fish

-----

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 16:07:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

We've used seat belts since back when we had to install (0.00 / 0)

them ourselves.  I don't start the car unless everyone's secured.
However, if people don't care enough about themselves and their friends and off-spring to make sure they are reasonably safe, they're likely the kind of people who get into crashes and deserve to be dispatched sooner, rather than later.  And, having their off-spring removed from the gene pool might not be such a bad idea either.

---

by: hannah @ Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 12:14:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I dont see it as (4.00 / 1)

"custom and upbringing" or "civil liberties vs. nanny state" I see it as, do seat belt laws save lives? And right now the data is not terribly conclusive.

Would you still want the law if it increased traffic related fatalities?

The studies I have read (I am a civil engineer) show a very marginal decrease in the number the traffic related fatalities and in some states (ND) an increase.

So Dean and Rep. Splaine if the law passes I would expect in the first couple years, until seatbelt usage exceeds a certain threshold, that there may be an increase in fatalities (mostly from pedestrians getting hit).

I am fine with that, as it will eventually lead to fewer deaths (and pocket NH $3.5 million) but let's at least put it in the conversion....

J  

---

by: Gearfish @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 07:00:02 AM CST

Question is larger than that, imho. (0.00 / 0)

do seat belt laws save lives

Yes, that's part of the question.  The other part for me is "do they make catastrophic, life-changing injuries from car crashes fewer in number"?

Another question unrelated to your comment: how many Granite Staters use seat belts right now, law or not?

That would be a useful poll question for Smith et alii.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 07:19:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I believe that (0.00 / 0)

the catastrophic life-changing injuries are statistically similar to deaths...

J

---

by: Gearfish @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 13:56:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not so sure - (4.00 / 1)

The advent of passive safety features such as airbags may mean that unbuckled people who would have died 15 years ago now survive in terrible shape.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 14:13:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Seat belt laws increase (0.00 / 0)

accidents, so if more accidents occur because people are driving faster due to the increased safety they feel from their seat belts, then there may be even more people surviving in terrible shape....

That is what I meant by statistically similar.

J

---

by: Gearfish @ Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 10:53:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't believe there is any (0.00 / 0)

data to back up that theory.

If we're just going to accept things that sound plausible, we're in the wrong party.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 10:58:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The answer to your question is they unquestionably save lives, (0.00 / 0)

The NHTSA keeps state-by-state statistics of seatbelt use. NH is the only state without a primary or secondary seatbelt law, and we have the lowest usage of any state. In 2007, 64% of us use seatbelts, lowest in the country. We used to be tied for lowest, but Wyoming enacted a seatbelt law in 2006 and usage there went up 10%. The national average use rate is 82%, and in a dozen states the usage rate is over 90%.

The NHTSA also looks at whether people who are killed in car accidents were wearing a seatbelt. In 2003-2006, 45% had a seatbelt on, 55% did not. That compares to a national average of 81% who are belted over the 4 years. So the unbelted 19% are killed 55% of the time while the belted 81% are killed 45% of the time. That means you are more than 5 times as likely to be killed in an accident if you are not wearing a seat belt.

I think that's pretty compelling. Seatbelt use  is a safety issue.  

---

by: Michael Marsh @ Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 05:04:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You can't use numbers that way. (0.00 / 0)

45% had a seatbelt on, 55% did not... So the unbelted 19% are killed 55% of the time while the belted 81% are killed 45% of the time.

You can't start with the fatalities and work backwards, you need to start with the total population of drivers.

For example: if being belted in gets in the way slightly of drivers making emergency moves, we might expect more belted drivers to crash but then a higher share of them survive.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 05:44:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I Would Question That (0.00 / 0)

45% to 55%? That's almost 50/50, Michael.

Is the 81% of the population putting on their seatbelt for safety sake, or to avoid a fine? I'd assume the latter since the prior NHTSA statistic seems to make it a coin flip of dying in an accident whether you have a seatbelt or not.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 08:01:54 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not exactly a coin flip. (0.00 / 0)

The odds would be even if the ratio of seatbelt wearers to non-seatbelt wearers was 1:1. It's not. Its more than 4:1. Since actually more people are killed from the non-seatbelt wearing population, the odds are actually higher than 4:1. they are 5.21 to 1 to be precise.  

---

by: Michael Marsh @ Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 13:25:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What part of the cited study did you fail to read? (0.00 / 0)

It says, "Overall, we find that seat belt legislation unambiguously reduces traffic fatalities." Are the people who are killed somehow "marginal?"

---

by: xteeth @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 07:53:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Main point of my post is.... (0.00 / 0)

....that there is more to highway safety than seat belt use.  The age of the population, the condition of the roads, the speed at which people habitually travel, number of pedestrian, their affinity for drink, and many other factors all make a difference. And there have been several states that have seen an increase in fatalities and injuries after implementing seat belt laws.

I posted that study because it was handy and credible

Either way I appreciate your condescending tone after you scrolled down to the end of the study and read the conclusion.

J

---

by: Gearfish @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 14:12:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm a bit conflicted here - (4.00 / 3)

The $3 million plus in federal highway funds requires that New Hampshire not only require seat belts - we must also allow "primary enforcement."

Secondary enforcement says, "If you get pulled over for something else and the officer sees you weren't wearing your seatbelt, you will get an additional fine." Primary enforcement says, "If the officer thinks you are not wearing your seatbelt, and that is your only suspected offense, he can pull you over." I don't believe a cop in a cruiser can tell whether my belt is on. Primary enforcement is an invitation to intrusive policing, IMO violating the principles of prohibiting warrantless searches.

Jim's arguments about clearing your windshield or having bald tires lumps together things that endanger people in other vehicles with things that endanger you and perhaps your passengers only. That distinction needs to be acknowledged.

Finally - there is a lot of cynicism about governors who have attacked the stimulus and yet will take the money. There's some honor in refusing to be bought by the feds here - perhaps outweighed by other concerns, but worth a tip of the hat.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 07:08:44 AM CST

I don't like that some of the bill's promoters (4.00 / 1)

tie it to the federal money involved.

I'd prefer obligatory seat belt use stand or fall on its own merits.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 07:20:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Unfortunately, the state (0.00 / 0)

lacks revenues, and it cannot afford to turn its nose at millions of dollars. I don't like it, either, but it's the carrot and stick from the feds.

That happened with raising the drinking age from 18 to 21. Federal highway money was tied to it (courtesy of St. Ronnie the Ray-gun), so the states did it.  

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 07:27:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

And the feds are trying to blackmail and bribe us (4.00 / 2)

into supporting REAL ID too.

If you view this as a question of civil liberties $3.5 million is a pretty low price to get for them.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 07:30:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Somehow (4.00 / 2)

I don't get creeped out by mandatory seat belts as I do about REAL ID, probably because I use seat belts anyway, whereas I don't want to be forced to have that kind of ID.

I also agree with you that the primary enforcement is lame and frankly a waste of officers' time.

But I don't see the seat belt issue as one of civil liberties the same way as ID.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 08:13:54 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Two things (0.00 / 0)

1. I think this boils down to safety and not merely revenue. New Hampshire is the last state to not have a law of this type and I think it is about time. I understand the personal choice argument, but I think this is a small personal freedom sacrifice. And yes, I am waiting for the inevitable slippery-slope rebuttal.

2. That being said, go on over to the union leader's site if you get a chance, pretty comical comments. Apparently the damn libruls are turning this state into taxachusetts. good stuff.

res severa verum gaudia

---

by: lawduck @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 09:28:56 AM CST

The UL readers have an excuse (0.00 / 0)

For umpitty-ump years they have been fed a pap of lies, innuendo, and misleading "facts".

Their editorial today on seatbelts is typical of the genre. Throwing 2 seatbelt use facts together from different sources that measure different things, impugning the motivation of the bill sponsors, purposefully misunderstanding basic statistics... I could go on.

The the damn readers eat it up because it confirms their skewed world view.  

---

by: Michael Marsh @ Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 05:52:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The Money's The Only Real Positive On This (4.00 / 2)

It's an unenforceable law first off. You can not wear your seatbelt until you get pulled over and not have any consequences.

The only way one could prove that you were or weren't wearing your seatbelt was if you were in a catastrophic accident, and putting a fine on top of that just seems like salt on the (literal) wounds.

If it's a matter of insurance costs, we should be legislating insurance companies rather than motorists.

If it's a matter of personal safety, we should be asking rather than telling.

This is a disconnect i've never understood in mainstream liberalism: on issues like abortion, it's not ok to tell someone what they can or can't do with their body, but on issues like seatbelts it is?

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 10:41:05 AM CST

But it's okay for the state (0.00 / 0)

for the sake of everyone's safety to tell you how fast to drive on a road?

What's the difference?

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 11:30:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It Affects Other People (0.00 / 0)

If you go fast and crash into someone, that affects that other driver.

There's a possibility that you wouldn't hit another person, but it's far more likely and can't be separated.

There are only three ways a person not wearing a seatbelt can affect another person

1. Higher insurance rates

2. The person not wearing the seatbelt is pregnant or is an organ donor.

3. The person has family members who rely on them.

With #1, the problem can be solved by legislating insurance companies if needed.

With #2, that gets into moral issues that go against the standard Democratic line about body rights, that's an entire other issue.

With #3, that goes to what Coffey said (if you die from a car crash or a heart attack, the result on the people who rely on you are the same.)

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 14:20:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not enforceable? (0.00 / 0)

Of course it's enforceable. Wyoming was the 49th state to enact a seatbelt law, 2006. Seatbelt usage there used to be the same as here. Now its about 10% higher. Many states with longstanding seatbelt laws get almost 100% compliance.  

And someone, their citizens remain "free". Go figure.  

---

by: Michael Marsh @ Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 05:56:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

So, It Will Just Be Enforced At Random? (0.00 / 0)

How can a state trooper or any other law enforcement official tell if a motorist just put on their seatbelt after they've been stopped?

Do law enforcement officials in Wyoming stop people just for not having their seatbelt on if they were going the speed limit?

I'd question the veracity of your numbers, Michael. Wherever they came from. That alleged 10% isn't putting on their seatbelt because it makes them safer, they're putting it on because they don't want a fine.

Again, going back to Coffey's statement, why not just fine all risky behavior in that case?  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 07:57:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

All laws are enforced randomly (0.00 / 0)

That's the nature of any law, when you think about it. I speed every day, but I seldom get ticketed. I imagine most others are the same way. The point of speed laws is to keep the speed down to a relatively sane limit. Selective or arbitrary enforecment accomplishes that. The prospect of a fine is a motivating factor.

Wyoming's seatbelt law is a secondary offence statute, like 22 other states. 26 states make not wearing a seatbelt a primary offense. Only one state has the Union Leader confusing its citizenry that somehow seatbelt non-use is akin  to the right to vote, or freedom of speech, or worshipping as they see fit.

Seatbelt data is published by the NHTSA and is collected from all sorts of sources, primarily the states. I make the assumption that it is accurate and based on reliable statistical sampling. Until 2 years ago, NH refused to give seatbelt use data to the feds, but now we do. That's how I know we are worst in the country. Check out the NHTSA web site if you have a few extra hours some time. I did a couple of years ago the last time this issue was in the legislature, to find out the answer to the question:  "Do seat belts save lives?" The answer is undoubtedly yes, if you work from the data. The number of lives saved is fairly high- around 12-15,000 per year. Then I wanted to know- "Do seatbelt laws increase the use of seatbelts?"  The answer to that is also undoubtedly yes. Those answers convinced me to vote for the law.

I was never impressed by the "freedom" argiment, as I think freedom and liberty mean something a little grander than whether I have to buckle up or not.

---

by: Michael Marsh @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 06:30:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

So You're Saying A Law Is Really Just A Suggestion Here (0.00 / 0)

Whether laws are or aren't enforced randomly, random enforcement is not something we should aspire to.

I'd assume since you're saying you're breaking the law every day that you'd also break this law every day and endanger people's lives.

Oh wait, you're not endangering anyone's life other than your own, and that's your choice.

It should be everyone's choice, because whether you're impressed with it or not, that is what freedom and liberty is, even on an issue as minor as this one.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 07:39:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

No I am not saying a law is really just a suggestion (0.00 / 0)

I have a pretty fair understanding of my native language. if I want to write "laws are suggestions", that's what I write. What I wrote was that all laws are enforced randomly. Sometimes you get caught and sometimes you don't. That is just a fact of life. I gave as evidence speeding, because that's something that most of us do everyday.

As for seatbelts, I grew up when they weren't standard on cars and I didn't develop the habit of wearing them. That changed when I spent a number of years in Europe where seatbelts are mandatory and where in some countries, notably Germany, enforcement is not so random. I never felt even for one second that I was losing my "freedom" because I had to wear a seatbelt. This is such a trivial instance of freedom I don't think it is worth the effort even remarking on.

We, as a society, codify good behavior into laws all the time. Once done, the citizens by-and-large comply and no one thinks about it. In Hawaii, seatbelt use is over 97%. Are Hawaiians any less free than us because os this? When the seatbelt bill came up last session, I spent about an hour of an otherwise-boring House session enumerating with a colleague other "freedoms" that NH  citizens give up, generally willingly without thought or complaint. We filled more than 3 pages without too much effort. I would guess the readers here could name at least a couple of hundred "lost freedoms" that "the state has stolen from us". Start with all the FDA regulations.  

---

by: Michael Marsh @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 09:18:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not enforceable? (0.00 / 0)

Of course it's enforceable. Wyoming was the 49th state to enact a seatbelt law, 2006. Seatbelt usage there used to be the same as here. Now its about 10% higher. Many states with longstanding seatbelt laws get almost 100% compliance.  

And someone, their citizens remain "free". Go figure.  

---

by: Michael Marsh @ Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 05:56:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

A modest proposal (4.00 / 1)

Leave the seat belt law as it is now. But if someone is injured in an accident and was not wearing a seat belt, increase the deductible on his/her medical payments.

...the Doo Dah Man once told me you've got to play your hand. Sometimes the cards ain't worth a dime if you don't lay 'em down.

---

by: rambler american @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 15:21:41 PM CST

Once again, the Governor is AWOL on this isssue (0.00 / 0)

He hasn't thought about it. His leadership (and spine) are once again AWOL.  

---

by: Putney Swope @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 16:12:18 PM CST

Seat belt laws (0.00 / 0)

The most compelling seat belt law derives from physics- I do not wish to be an object staying in motion when my car comes to an abrupt halt. I wear safety belts. But I am also opposed to a state safety belt law. Enact it, and you will give law enforcement a blanket excuse to peer within your vehicle at any and all times. In fact, surveillance of the vehicle interiors of otherwise law-abiding drivers will become commonplace.  Hefty fines make this sort of surveillance a big and easy reward- an easy revenue gathering practice. Will police sometimes mistakenly charge people with seat belt violations? Do the innocent ever get accused unjustly? All the time.  And this would be a hassle most would choose not to fight- they would mostly just pay the fines and not dispute the words of police.  Unethical cops will have another easy way to be unethical.  

---

by: jdodson @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 16:35:16 PM CST

seat belts: reason worked for you (0.00 / 0)

Reason works.  The voluntary rate of seat belt use in NH jumped dramatically from 2003 (49.6%) to 2006 (63.5%).  Most or nearly all the writers seem to pride themselves on their wisdom in using safety belts. Why do you think you need to compel others rather than reason with them? There can easily be lots of unintended consequences to a PRIMARY seat belt law, in particular.  Law enforcement will become actively engaged in surveillance of your cars as well as those who are not buckling up.  You cannot have control over every other person in a vahicle, even if you are driving.  If a passenger unbuckles for whatever reason, the whole party in a vehicle can and may be stopped. Do you know the contents of everybody's pockets? Will the police find reason to do a general search of your vehicle? The actual seat belt status of people in a moving vehicle would seem to be a highly unverifiable condition WITHOUT stopping vehicles almost presumptively, unless there is surveillance apparatus delicate enough to show such things.  A primary seat law is very problematic.  

---

by: jdodson @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 18:02:04 PM CST