Do you think the law that you must wear your seatbelt is a violation of your rights?

Question

Wearing a seatbelt only saves/kills your own life, not others. It is the same as drinking.

Answer 1

Safety belts saved over 12,000 American lives in 2001. However, during this same year, nearly two-thirds (60 percent) of passenger vehicle occupants killed in traffic crashes were unrestrained.

Research has shown that lap/shoulder belts, when used properly, reduce the risk of fatal injury to front-seat passenger car occupants by 45 percent and the risk of moderate to critical injury by 50 percent. For light truck occupants, safety belts reduce the risk of fatal injury by 60 percent and moderate-to-critical injury by 65 percent.

Safety belts should always be worn, even when riding in vehicles equipped with air bags. Air bags are designed to work with safety belts, not by themselves. Air bags, by themselves, have a fatality-reducing effectiveness of only 12 percent.

Safety belt use saves society an estimated $50 billion annually in medical care, lost productivity, and other injury related costs.

Conversely, safety belt non use results in significant economic costs to society. The needless deaths and injuries from safety belt non use result in an estimated $26 billion in economic costs to society annually.The cost of unbuckled drivers and passengers goes far beyond those killed and the loss to their families. We all pay--in higher taxes and higher health care and insurance costs.

So no its not a violation of your rights.

For more information go to http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov

Answer 2

No, it is not. The states have a great deal of time and money put into the roads as part of the overall transportation system, and have found through studies that seat belt use significantly reduces injuries in a crash, so they do have a vested interest in keep the motoring public safe. As a result, federal law mandates that seat belts will be installed in all vehicles built beyond a certain date, and the states for the most part have put ordinances on the books requiring their use, and making it a moving violation if they are not in use.

Keeping in mind that time is money, let's look at the same crash with and without seat belts in use.

2 lane road, good road conditions, but the driver drops off the edge and over corrects, causing a roll over accident. He has his wife as a passenger, and one child in the back seat. The vehicle winds up back on its wheels after rolling.

One police car, everyone is okay, just a little shook up. One wrecker who tows the damaged vehicle away while the family gets a ride to the local emergency room to be checkout out. Total time road blocked, 15 minutes. Vehicle moved off the road to allow traffic to flow early on.

Without seat belts. Child, unrestrained, has gone through the windshield, wife has hit the windshield also, and has life threatening injuries. Husband has hit the wheel and has, at the least, a broken arm. More than one cop, one ambulance, the coroner, the funeral home. The full investigation takes time since there was a death. Road blocked time, hours. Vehicle cannot be moved until the investigation is finished.

Answer 3

Smoking might want to were outlaws many years in the past yet that is yet another concern. there is surely a hypocritical regularly happening at the same time as it includes seat belt regulations. some states require bike helmets and others do not yet all require seat belts and Missouri is a state the position there is an ongoing debate about helmets that is in nationwide headlines. Why is a automobile any diverse from a bike? they're both motorcar approved through the state. the thanks to make subject matters like this so away is to take the count number to the entire courtroom so the constitutional arguments will be made. regrettably this courtroom has a tendency to easily like the prestige quo and does hardly overturn what it considers "time-honored" regulation.

Answer 4

Do you have any idea how much it costs the taxpayers to take care of people who are injured in crashes every year?
Inpatient hospital care costs for an unbelted crash victim are approximately 50 percent higher than those for a crash victim who was wearing a seat belt. Taxpayers, not the crash victim, pick up 75 percent of those costs. Considering that my taxes and insurance deductibles pay to take care of their sorry butts, then yes, I have a right to demand that you wear a seatbelt.

Answer 5

I look at it as the same as I'm not allowed to drive 100mph, even when I'm the only one on the highway. I never used my seatbelt until it became law. Now it's so automatic. If I ever crash and survive, I'll thank some legislator.

Answer 6

no because it saves lives, and if you didn't have the law then people would probably sue a state for some ridiculous reason that could have been prevented by wearing a seatbelt

Answer 7

It is very much in violation of your rights. As you said it puts no one else in danger but your self. Also it doesn't effect the safety of your driving like speeding or drinking does. this is something the government had absolutely no right to do regardless of the safety issues. In New Hampshire who's state motto is live free or die they do not have the law for people over a certain age I think 13. New Hampshire is standing up for the motto of their state. Because they are not making it a law the federal government is not giving them the same funding for the roads as the other states get. If you do not do what the government wants they will bully you. I do think that the law should apply to people under a certain age until they are old enough to make a reasonable decision for them self's.

Answer 8

well, you see we all pay for each other through this system we call car insurance. accident insurance. so actually i do pay for your injuries through my insurance premiums. most states require a driver to have insurance. so it affects all drivers.
i think that the cost of your injuries will also change my health insurance premiums if you are in the hospital, whether you have insurance or not, it costs more to treat you than if you had been wearing your seat belt. so it does affect others. also if you die your children are orphans and my social security taxes pay them benefits. also i don't really want your kids growing up without a parent, so i'd rather you lived. but your seatbelt usage could really change life for your children. same arguments for helmet laws, etc.

Answer 9

No, It's not a violation of your rights, just one of the requirements to drive. It doesn't say you can't get a licence if you're blind...but passing a vision test is a requirement. And I don't see how this is the same as drinking; it's the LAW, and you obey or pay the price.

Answer 10

If only YOU were affected by your actions, lawmakers wouldn't care. However, too many people are not insured for medical care,
and cannot afford $500,000 for a two day stay, so they end up in County hospitals at Govt. (taxpayer) expense.

And yes, it IS a violation of my rights, but defying the law can get expensive.