I love to drive my cars and motorcycles, but I feel there are too many restrictions. I live in a small town with little traffic. Why should I have to wear a seat belt or some damn helmut everytime I go out? If I want to save my head or wear a seatbelt, it should be my choice. After all, this USED to be America, Land of the Free. Is there anyone out there that would like to repeal these repressing laws with an initiative? I would like to hear some comments on this. Thank You

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), December 27, 1999

Answers

As a former motorcycle operator and sky-diver, I have voluntarily assumed my share of risk in the past, so if you want to get an initiative up, I'll sign it. While I think that you ought to have the RIGHT to not wear a helmet or seatbelt, I think it is most unwise. You increase the likelihood of injury greatly in the event of an accident, and if you are a motorcycle rider you will eventually have one. I dumped my bike when I hit some wet leaves on the road, going around a corner at very modest speeds. I always wore a full face helmet plus a good set of leather gloves, and even then realized I was taking a chance. The statistics concerning morbidity and mortality for non seat belt wearers pretty much speak for themselves. If you have children, I would be very concerned about the example you are setting if you don't use seatbelts yourself, your kids will tend to emulate you.

And of course if you don't buckle up your kids, I hope Ed (or another cop) tickets you and the judge hammers you good. Just because I support YOUR right to make dangerous choices, doesn't mean I'd support your endangering someone else, particularly a minor child.

The Craigster

PS: Sign an organ donor card, and make sure your relatives know that you have. Your kidneys can help a couple of people who have kidney failure through no fault of their own. Your corneas can potentially restore sight to somebody was keratoconus or severe corneal scarring. Your liver can help some old Seattle rock star survive another 5-10 years with his hepatitis C that he got from his own real risky behavior in the seventies. Have a happy New Year!

.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 27, 1999.

At hospitals, they refer to motorcyclists invovled in accidents as "donorcycles". Since it's US taxpayers who end up footing the bill for most of the catastrophic injuries caused by lack of seatbelt and helmet usage, I think this is a prudent law intended for the protection (fiscally and physically)of the people. If one person is saved and nobody is hurt, it's not a bad thing. However, repealing the law(s) would have just the opposite affect. More people would be hurt and the cost to taxpayers would go up. This is one time where a little governmental intrusion into our lives is good....

-- just a guy (torijosh@yahoo.com), December 27, 1999.

"Since it's US taxpayers who end up footing the bill for most of the catastrophic injuries caused by lack of seatbelt and helmet usage, I think this is a prudent law intended for the protection (fiscally and physically)of the people"

Just a guy-

I can carry this argument as far as you having mandatory exercise periods, mandatory healthy food, mandatory spiritually uplifting reading and TV, restoration of prohibition, and elimination of every other real and perceived vice.

Be really careful about justifying government intrusion into private choices based upon the "no man is an island" philosophy. It is more appropriate for totalitarian regimes than for a democracy, however well intentioned the sentiment.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 27, 1999.

I don't think anyone should have to wear a seat belt or use any safety devices. However, if you have an accident your insurance company should not have to cover you. You should have to sell your home and any property to cover your medical costs. If you live you should have to pay for these costs without the benifit of discharge through bankrupcey. I think that this would cause most people to use safety devices. Government should never force safety on individuals. In the case of children I draw the line as they have no choice in the matter. If you fail to belt your children and they become injured when they come of age they should be allowed to sue their parents. Again a free market solution can be found other than empowering government to compound the problem. It was know that Air bags would kill children and small adults but those deaths were considered OK for the greater good.

-- Jim Coats (deovin@whidbey.net), December 27, 1999.

Steve Dasbach had the following to say about seat belt laws:

"At best, seat belt laws will only save as many people each year as are currently being killed by previous federal automotive legislation."

The evidence: According to the Department of Transportation, as many as 4,000 lives could be saved if seat belt compliance went up to 85%.

But that's equal to the number of people who are being killed annually by the government's Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) laws, which required car manufacturers to build smaller, lighter cars -- which are less resistant to crashes.

A recent study by scientists at Harvard University and the Brookings Institution calculated that the average weight of automobiles has decreased by 500 pounds because of CAFE laws, killing up to 4,000 Americans every year.

"With CAFE laws, politicians traded better gas mileage for human lives, and mandatory seat belt laws won't bring them back."

"Nor will new laws make up for the dozens of dead women and children who were killed by government-mandated air bags."

"Department of Transportation bureaucrats admit that one reason they want to mandate seat belts is to defuse the debate about air bags -- which have killed at least 39 children and 24 adults," he said. "They hope this new mandate will save the lives of people who risk death from their last mandate."

However, like with airbags, there is considerable debate about whether seat belts actually save lives.

A 1993 study by the University of Missouri found that, overall, seat belts don't save lives. The study, entitled "Reshuffling the Death Certificates," found that people who wear seat belts feel safer, so they drive more recklessly.

As a result, they kill more pedestrians, passengers, cyclists, and other motorists -- while remaining safer themselves. "Overall, seat belts laws don't save lives; they merely determine who will live and who will die," the study concluded.

"Despite what this study says, seat belts probably do save lives -- which is one reason why 68% of Americans already use them." But the real issue is: Who decides? Individuals must be allowed to make life- and-death safety decisions -- NOT bureaucrats and politicians in Washington, DC.

"In fact, based on their miserable track record on auto safety, it's the politicians who are probably the biggest danger on America's highways."

-- Tony (eagleross@pioneernet.net), December 27, 1999.

Tony, to continue your argument.. The proliferation of SUVs is also deaths in the making. The liberals scream about them because they use to much gas, take up too much room etc etc. But the real problem with SUVs is they amke a whole lot of people who aren't competent enough to drive think they are invincible.. Maybe they are, but the rest of us are their targets.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), December 28, 1999.