New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | June 3, 2005

Seat belt paternalism gives Ted Balaker road rage.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← William Bratton, Cupid's Calling! | Main | Ditko vs. a Grizzly Bear? Ditko! →

See all 76 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|6.3.05 @ 5:02PM|#

"Reversing the trend of ever worsening traffic congestion would also help. Congestion makes drivers desperate, and desperate drivers do stupid things that endanger all of us."

No, it wouldn't. Congested areas have much lower rates of traffic fatalities, because the average speed is much lower. More accidents overall, but much lower injury and fatality rates.

|6.3.05 @ 5:02PM|#

To get to work I drive through a lot of rural and semi-rural roads which handle FAR more traffic than they should, and for the past week, just before my turnoff in Newtown, Connecticut, there's been a huge sign saying "Seatbelt Checkpoint Ahead." Which makes the already-clogged roads even worse and solves less than nothing; is there ANYBODY so dumb that they'd see the sign and not put on their seatbelt if they didn't already have it on?

|6.3.05 @ 5:04PM|#

Jennifer,

They get people to put on their seatbelts before they get a chance to ticket them?

You'd almost think they were more concerned about people's safety than about ticket revenue.

|6.3.05 @ 5:06PM|#

Joe-
In the thriving metropolises (metropoli?) of Newtown and Redding, Connecticut, even if you don't wear your seatbelt I'm not sure how much danger you'd be in, if you had an accident while chuffing along at twenty miles per hour.

|6.3.05 @ 5:08PM|#

20 mph will absolutely cause your head to break the windshield.

Imagine running, on foot, into a telephone pole at your top running speed. You probably can't run even 10 mph.

|6.3.05 @ 5:13PM|#

How much inertia does a 20 mph car have anyway? All I know is, thanks to the checkpoint what was an already irritating 80-minute morning commute is now a hyperirritating 95-minute commute, apparently For My Own Good.

|6.3.05 @ 5:32PM|#

Again, the question becomes "by what right do you make this law?" And the answer, again, is "Becuase we know best."

As far as congestion-I don't think the author is talking about jams on surface streets. Those are irritating, but not dangerous. Congestion on the freeways, on the other hand, is extremely dangerous.

|6.3.05 @ 5:36PM|#

Once again, the authorities strive to eliminate one of the few remaining forces of selection acting to improve the gene pool...

joe loves these stories, since he's making a career out of knowing what's best for us.

|6.3.05 @ 5:45PM|#

The For Your Own Good reasoning is bad, but it is much less frightening than the more often employed 'your risky behavior drives up public expenditures on police'. That one gives me cold chills.

First we give you no choice but to contribute to the public safety so that you aren't a free rider. Fine. Then we use the cost of public safety to regulate your behavior? It is this sort of thing that makes libertarians worry so about slippery slopes. The more crap the nanny state wants to take care of for you, the more this argument gets employed. "Put on the seatbelt, you're costing police," easily could be "Put down the donut, you're costing medicare."

|6.3.05 @ 5:45PM|#

Click it? Stick it.

|6.3.05 @ 5:49PM|#

Jason-we're pretty much there already.

CodeMonkeySteve|6.3.05 @ 6:10PM|#

Serendipitous:

Rockville, MD police issue 111 seatbelt tickets in one night using night vision goggles.

Between this and anti-window-tinting laws, I'm starting to think that it has nothing to do with safety or revenue; the State just likes spying on us. Call it "Orwellian Voyerism" (Voywellianism?).

|6.3.05 @ 6:14PM|#

Once again, I harm nobody but myself if I don't wear my seatbelt. So why is the State ticketing me? My father, who has been in many accidents, refuses to wear his seatbelt because he feels they do more harm than good. Look, you don't argue with my father and on at least 2 occasions a seatbelt might have prevented him from escaping the car, so I'll let him slide. Now, if I'm willing to let my own father risk his life, then why isn't the government? Is it really because they care more about my father than I do? Or is it because they can extort money from him at gunpoint?

Aren't these laws of the same ilk that forced airbags on us all, because people would never voluntarily wear seatbelts?

|6.3.05 @ 6:15PM|#

I know it's not orthodox, but I have a hard time condemning these kinds of harmless nanny laws like seatbelts and helmets. But I don't want to see any money or time spent on enforcement, that's a waste. Checkpoints are rediculous. I feel for you, Jennifer.

|6.3.05 @ 6:22PM|#

except in extremely rare circumstances?one driver's decision to go beltless does not make anyone else less safe.

Does anyone know of an example of what one of these rare circumstances might be?

Jim Anderson|6.3.05 @ 6:25PM|#

Jennifer wrote: "How much inertia does a 20 mph car have anyway?"

Learn away.

|6.3.05 @ 6:28PM|#

" 'except in extremely rare circumstances?one driver's decision to go beltless does not make anyone else less safe.'

Does anyone know of an example of what one of these rare circumstances might be?"

My Dad's justification for agreeing with seat-belt laws are as follows (he's a dittohead, btw): If he has a heart attack and goes to the hosptial, and someone in a car accident who wasn't wearing a seat belt also goes at the same time, the MVA victim gets the priority.

I have to leave soon, and have a 2+ hour commute, so when I get home I'll list all the problems with that position that I can think of.

|6.3.05 @ 6:34PM|#

So this is what those 100,000 new police officers Clinton promised are doing.

CodeMonkeySteve|6.3.05 @ 6:38PM|#

I have a hard time condemning these kinds of harmless nanny laws

This, I feel, is the great danger of the Nanny State: it makes itself look "mostly harmless" while it erodes liberty, invades privacy, increases injury, encourages venality, and dissuades responsibility.

I dont care what the ends are; the solution is always worse than whatever problem it's purported to solve.

|6.3.05 @ 6:54PM|#

One officer proudly reports that this effort yields about 200 tickets per day...

Oh yeah? Like those women who work as lures for Johns and boast to the press of what an important job they're doing. They're the grown-up versions of the sniveling tattletales from our school years. Needless to say, these people should be subjected to death by torture.

...most of us would object to stationing cops at chubby checkpoints...

Most, but not all. It's coming...

...it's a system that forces everyone to subsidize everyone else...

Bingo. A few years Ann Landers (may she rot in hell) justified seatbelt legislation by observing, "we all pay for the health care of those who don't buckle up." Funny, it never occurred to her to question the socialization of health care...

PS: I remember seeing the execrable Country-Pop vocalist Barbara Mandrell a few years ago, testifying in Congress that seat belts saved her life. Personally, I've never seen a more convincing argument against buckling up. And why is it that only the cool people get killed in car wrecks: James Dean, Eddie Cochran, Jayne Mansfield, Sam Kinison, all get creamed in car crashes, but ol' Branson Barb? Naaaaaaaah. She lives to inflict her godawful music and proselytizations on all of us yet another day. Once again, I picked the wrong planet for justice.

OK, I'm going back on the Prozac...

|6.3.05 @ 6:59PM|#

Just Curious asks:
Does anyone know of an example of what one of these rare circumstances might be?

Can think of at least one: Can't stand it when I see idiot parents driving with babies on their laps. Small children don't have the ability to click themselves in.

But Sulla has a point about improving the gene pool by allowing people to be belt-free. Last year a kid in a pickup lost control and swerved into an irrigation ditch right across the street from my house. He was ejected over 30 feet and died instantly. It was pretty sad to see his dead body laying in the middle of the field for over 5 hours before the medical examiner arrived. Needless to say, traffic was redirected and people were inconvenienced for hours. But worse were his yahoo buddies who showed up at the "memorial site" and insisted on blaring their favorite tunes at 3 AM. Did they think that he could possibly hear it?

More to the point of this thread: Seatbelt laws and checkpoints probably don't save lives. Public education would probably be better.

|6.3.05 @ 7:00PM|#

It is perhaps worth noting that when this nonsense was first instituted in Michigan (specifically -- "click it or ticket" in the Greater [sic] Detroit Area), a local news station did some checking up of their own.
Turned out cops without seat belts outnumbered others without seatbelts by a hefty margin.
How surprising?
Shirley Knott

|6.3.05 @ 7:06PM|#

Jennifer wrote: "How much inertia does a 20 mph car have anyway?"

Joe's original analogy is a bad one. You driving at 20 are unlikely to have a crash with a brick wall still moving 20 MPH. You'll most likely rear end someone while hitting your brakes. The car you run into will have crumple zones as will your car. These will all disipate part of the impact.

It's like that State Farm commercial, a car moving at 20 MPH hits with as much force as a 4 story drop. Assuming of course I run directly into a wall at that speed. It's nothing like real life.

|6.3.05 @ 7:06PM|#

Being the nervous type, I have ALWAYS worn my seatbelt since I first got my license, long before the mandatory belt laws. But the fact that I wear my seat belt anyway isn't the point. When I'm stuck in traffic near the checkpoint each morning (I don't actually go through it because my turnoff is there, but the traffic backs up enough to affect me anyway) I feel resentful, and have this weird flashback to second grade, when the teacher apparently found a naughty note someone had written. To try and find out who wrote it, she made everybody write the word "from" and then line up to show her so she could try to match the handwriting. I didn't write the note, I didn't do a goddamned thing wrong, and yet there I was, still having to stand in line and be meek and mild and wait for my turn to prove that Yes, Ma'am, I'm a Good Little Girl.

I resented that enough when I was seven, and I DAMNED sure resent it now, nearly three decades later.

Oh, and the teacher never did find out who wrote it, just as the Newtown police haven't found any beltless people in this checkpoint so far. Just a huge, pointless, infuriating and insulting waste of time.

|6.3.05 @ 7:09PM|#

Billboardsong posted after I started writing my last one, but I'd like to say that I DO support laws requiring small children to be belted. Even New Hampshire requires that; when you cross the state line you see signs that say something like "Seat belts required for children, not for adults; common sense for all."

|6.3.05 @ 7:36PM|#

I agree with jennifer about laws requiring small children to buckled up. However the small child on the drivers lap is not a good example. there is a huge difference between me not wearing a seatbelt and allowing a baby or small child to go un-buckled, let alone sit on my lap. Adults stupid and irresponsible enough to allow a small child or baby to sit on their lap deserve severe punishment.

|6.3.05 @ 7:48PM|#

Joe: Congested areas have much lower rates of traffic fatalities, because the average speed is much lower.

Yeah, Joe that would explain why traffic fatalities are through the roof since the max speed limit went from 65 to 75 MPH.

|6.3.05 @ 7:48PM|#

shirley,
Car accidents are the #1 killers of police officers. Most of these fatalities could be prevented by wearing seatbelts. Yet there's more focus on "cop killer" bullets than "cop killer" idiocy.

I agree with child seatbelt laws, but if you're an adult, you should be able to kill endanger yourself if you so please. I actually convinced one of my friends that seatbelt laws are idiotic. She used the Ann Landers logic. She also happens to be an avid rock climber. I said by her reasoning, she shouldn't be allowed to climb sheer faces of rock.

Phil|6.3.05 @ 8:49PM|#

Congested areas have much lower rates of traffic fatalities, because the average speed is much lower. More accidents overall, but much lower injury and fatality rates.

Given that, it makes even less sense for Fairfax County -- and the other counties surrounding DC -- to have cops sitting there pulling people off of 66, 95, 395 and 270 to ticket them for not having seatbelts on. Not wearing a seatbelt should never, ever have become a primary offense anywhere. Ever. The opportunity cost of pursuing actual dangerous drivers and other crimes is just too high.

handdrummer|6.3.05 @ 9:14PM|#

You guys are supposed to be free marketers, right? Let the market decide.

Have two classes of health/auto accident insurance. One for seatbelt wearers, one for non-seatbelt users. Same for helmut laws.

I suspect that the insurance rates for the wearers would be significantly less and with good simple economic reason.

That way those of us with sense enough to take easy safety precautions won't have to pay for those of you who want the freedom to be thrown from your bike and have your head smashed in by the impact. Your freedom stops at my wallet.

|6.3.05 @ 9:53PM|#

Dave,

Raising the speed limit 10 mph didn't raise average speeds 10 mph. Also, the difference between 55 and 65 mph, in terms of ability to avoid accidents and the seriousness of the damage done, is much smaller than the difference between moving between a stop and 40 mph over the course of your commute, and moving between 55 and 70.

|6.3.05 @ 10:02PM|#

Actually, I'm not sure where I stand on seat belt laws. The argument against them is obvious. And those "click it or ticket ads" are infuriating - my reaction to the statie barking at the camera while the other statie balled out the driver in the background was to chant "Fuck You, Fuck You" until the commercial ended. And I wear my seatbelt all the time.

The only good argument I've heard in their favor is that they keep the driver in front of the steering wheel and able to control the car better in an accident or emergency situation, thus reducing the risk to other drivers. It makes sense - as a Mao worshipping, filthy hippie I'm naturally attracted to public safety - but it's a pretty intrusive law, and I'm not sure how to weigh the considerations. I guess it depends on how significant the safety impact is, and I don't have a good enough sense of that to make an informed call.

No, the reason I'm attracted to these stories is because it's related to a subject I know a little about: traffic.

|6.3.05 @ 10:39PM|#

"Actually, I'm not sure where I stand on seat belt laws."

I subscribe to the "Broken Windows" approach to law enforcement that Giuliani made famous.

...When you let law enforcement get away with the little opressions, they start to think they can get away with the big stuff too. Before long, they get out of hand.

Warren|6.3.05 @ 11:04PM|#

Seatbelt laws have it totally backwards. If anything, we should adopt policies that encourage stupid people to kill themselves off, not save their idiotic lives, so they can breed more stupid people.

Y�know, I�ve noticed an infestation here. Everywhere I look, in fact. Nothing but undeveloped, unevolved, barely conscience pond scum, totally convinced of their own superiority as they scurry about in short pointless lives.�

|6.3.05 @ 11:32PM|#

I heard somewhere that if we really want people to drive safely, we should pass a law mandating ten-inch-long knives sticking out of steering wheels.

|6.3.05 @ 11:35PM|#

I'm against child seat belt laws. Generally the people not putting the child in the seat belt shares genes with the child. I believe in Darwin.

|6.3.05 @ 11:41PM|#

I drove through Chicago last weekend and the place was crawling with police officers. I passed a couple of checks that were luckily on the access ramps.

The Illinois State Police managed to ticket 394 people for speeding, 455 for seat belt violations, but only 22 for driving under the influence.

This was a little surprising since the roads I drove on normally move about 80mph (speed limit 55) but because of the number of people coming back from parties, weaving at 45mph in the left lane, traffic speeds were considerably slower.

Am I to assume that DUI's aren't as profitable as speeding or seat belt violations?

|6.3.05 @ 11:52PM|#

Joe said, "You probably can't run even 10 mph."
What? Maybe those people we're putting up the chubby check point's for, but that's not the rest of us. I always figured the best way to get safety belts on without legislation would be to allow insurance to cut you off for not doing it. You don't get life insurance for killing yourself. Medicare could make the same refusal, it would be a powerfull incentive.

|6.4.05 @ 12:34AM|#

Only slightly off topic.

Airbags Kill!!!!

http://physorg.com/news4363.html

|6.4.05 @ 1:13AM|#

I've seen several posters suggest that while they hate seatbelt laws for adults, child seatbelt laws are fine.

What other laws do agree with in order to keep dumb/careless parents from endangering their kids? Fines for parents that take their children to Arby's to often? Letting their kids watch too much TV? Too little?

|6.4.05 @ 1:20AM|#

The insurance market does use some incentives it seems, Geico gives me a small discount because my car has automatic shoulder belts.
I hate seat belts, although I usually wear them. At 5'2", I'm continually dragging the shoulder belt down off my neck. I've always figured that if I'm in a car accident, I've got as much chance of being killed by the belt as I do of having it save my life.

|6.4.05 @ 2:38AM|#

crimethink:

I've encountered that same example. (I think it may have been in a discussion in my law and economics class a few years back.)

On a related point, I've always wondered to what degree seatbelts, airbags, and other safety devices might cause more accidents, since these devices lessen the risk of serious injury in the event of a collision.

|6.4.05 @ 1:13PM|#

"Am I to assume that DUI's aren't as profitable as speeding or seat belt violations?"

From the talking to a few cops, it is not that they are more profitable (cops don't get a cut, they merely have to fill a quota) it is that DUI's are a pain in the ass for the police officer.

More than one veteran police officer has told me "never again will I ever issue a DUI, I will avoid that like the plague."

Of course DUI's are still issued, so either there are a lot of rookie cops out there or some of the veterans don't feel the same way or they can't get out of it.

|6.4.05 @ 1:46PM|#

1) Ah, the usual Reason discussion of seat belt laws which then turns into an attack on "socialized medicine" because it is allegedly socializing the cost of injury that allows seatbelts to be required (I put socialized medicine in quotes because I like saving the term for the real thing: ie the canadian or european model). The main problem with this argument is that it's hard to conceive of a society in which this cost isn't *externalized* to some degree.

If a person is dying with auto injuries there are very very few people who are going to say "let them die" when they can be saved (and the procedure of saving them is, I imagine, fairly simple and immediate compared to say treating cancer). And if such a person can be saved most people aren't going to let them die even if they don't have health insurance.

Now in a better market perhaps more people could afford their own catestrophic health insurance and so very few would be dependent on charity or the state but maybe some always would. And even for all the people who have insurance the cost is still externalized because externalizing costs IS WHAT INSURANCE DOES *BY DEFINITION*.

The insurance companies could offer different rates based on seat belt status of course but the problem is that they have no way to determine it (it's harder to detect than say being a 2 pack a day smoker). So such a plan would merely lead to insurance companies having some means of spying or enforcment (insurance cops?) which may or may not be an improvement although it is partial privatization certainly.

|6.4.05 @ 2:16PM|#

Am I to assume that DUI's aren't as profitable as speeding or seat belt violations?

I would think that a DUI is more likely to be challenged in court than a seat belt or speeding violation. Since getting a DUI now could pretty much screw up your life forever. My friends that are cops in the ALB NM area don't mind giving DUI's when they need some extra cash because going to court on the case results in a minimum of two hours OT.

|6.4.05 @ 4:52PM|#

regarding extra insurance for noncompliers:

in Florida, motorcyclists (bikers?) don't have to wear a helmet, IF they have purchased additional personal injury protection insurance. Presumably, they must provide evidence of this, the same way we all must provide proof of insurance by law if we (we being Floridians, I don't know what other states do) are pulled over by police. The same principle could be extended to seat belt avoiders. The state is still involved, but this seems less offensive to me.

The thing that really pisses me off is that failure to use a seat belt is not a primary offense in Florida, except during the click it or ticket campaign. How did the police get the right to change the law? Or did the state legislature bend over for the feds (again)?

I say this as someone who probably is still alive only because of a seatbelt: I'd rather the gov'mint kept unsafe drivers off the road than force me to wear a seatbelt. I was in a bad car accident with a drunk driver whose license was revoked for DUI, and whose blood alcohol level was 0.24. Plainly, that guy wasn't interested in being responsible, and taking away his license didn't keep him from driving. IMO, he should have been jailed, not because he wouldn't stop drinking, but he wouldn't stop drinking and driving. As a result, he drove south in the northbound lane of a divided highway and totalled my car and injured me and my passenger.

|6.4.05 @ 5:22PM|#

Ah, the usual Reason discussion of seat belt laws which then turns into an attack on "socialized medicine"

What I saw was an attack on those who use the fact of "socialized medicine" as an argument to further restrict other people's conduct not an attack on "socialized medicine" per se.

It's also important to distinguish between seat belt use and seat belt laws. Seat belt use is common sense while seat belt laws are an unwarranted intrusion that probably achieve no higher rates of seat belt use than a public relations campaign.

And to whoever mentioned it, I have heard that being restrained while driving may help drivers cope with crisis situations, like regaining control after driving off the pavement.

|6.4.05 @ 5:38PM|#

"The main problem with this argument is that it's hard to conceive of a society in which this cost isn't *externalized* to some degree."

I'm not following this line at all.

I haven't looked at my statement lately, but, as I recall, the uninsured motorist coverage is the least expensive portion of my policy. Nothing prevents me from buying coverage to protect myself should I be hit by an uninsured driver. Nothing prevents people who don't wear their seatbelts from buying as much coverage as they please.

If an uninsured driver receives treatment as the result of a catastrophic accident, should he not be billed for the service? If he refuses to pay, should he not be sued for non-payment? ...Are there no bankruptcy laws?

Somehow, many of us have learned to think of insurance as something other people should buy in case they harm you, hence some of the enthusiasm for required insurance laws, helmet laws and seatbelt laws--but that's only a part of what insurance is for.

It isn't difficult for me to conceive of a society in which people take responsibility for risks to themselves and their own property. Insurance is also something you buy in case other people harm you.

|6.4.05 @ 5:51PM|#

Ken-
In 1994 I spent the summer after college living in Alabama (long story); this was the only time I've ever lived in a state that did NOT require auto insurance. So I when I went to buy insurance I figured it would be cheaper than what I was used to paying; after all, since the state didn't require all drivers to be customers, wouldn't the insurance companies have to offer lower rates to attract customers?

No. Although in most ways the cost of living there was much lower than what I'd grown accustomed to in Southeastern Virginia (and magnitudes cheaper than what I'd find in Connecticut, where I now live), car insurance was monstrously expensive, because I had to pay through the nose to compensate for the fact that if someone DID hit me, chances are he'd have no insurance or money of his own to pay for damages.

That's why I do support mandatory insurance laws (or, in the case of rich people like Bill Gates, a situation where you don't need to buy coverage if you instead keep an equivalent sum in an escrow account to pay for any damages you cause). Because, despite the huge insurance premiums I paid in Alabama, if I HAD been hit by an uninsured driver and filed a claim, my premiums would have gone still higher even though the accident would not have been my fault. Basically, I'm saying drivers shouldn't be allowed on the road unless they can afford to pay for any damages they might cause to others.

|6.4.05 @ 5:54PM|#

I ALWAYS wear my seatbelt, but whenever I see a click-it-or-ticket sign, I am filled with a burning rage and have to fight myself to not take the seatbelt off right then and there.

What right does anybody have to tell me what's good for me? Especially when they say it in such condescending parental tones. Adopting a fucking smarmy slogan like [shudder] "Click it or Ticket" is really the last straw. There's more than enough evidence that the people cramming this shit down our throats have no respect whatsoever for us.

It sounds lile some snot-nosed ass-kissing 6th grade teacher's pet dogfucker came up with that slogan. I bet it came out of one of those goddamn "poster contests" that we were forced to "participate" in in grade school--you know the ones where the "winner's" poster gets tacked up on billboards across the state. The ones that invariably have a forced theme of "drugs are bad, m'kay?" Or any number of bullshit propagandistic themes they want to force down the throats of the captive students?

God this burns me up.

|6.4.05 @ 6:07PM|#

I used to be a libertarian. Then I realized that libertarians expend more effort fighting (or, more typically, complaining about) things like seat belt laws than they could ever stand to make up for in reward (i.e. the savings from would-be tickets, the joy in knowing that you can live life unencumbered by the trivial, common-sense demands of The Man) should those laws be repealed.

That's when I realized that libertarians are crazy. But at least they have principles!

|6.4.05 @ 6:57PM|#

the joy in knowing that you can live life unencumbered by the trivial, common-sense demands of The Man

Uh, could you please explain to my crazy but principled self what is "common sense" about police blocking a well-used thoroughfare in an already-congested town during the morning rush hour, please?

To add to the infuriating irony, a couple months ago my area, the Danbury-Bridgeport corridor of Connecticut, made CNN's "Top Ten List" of the nation's worst, most congested traffic areas, and state leaders spoke in grave tones about how bad it was that Connecticut commuters lose billions of dollars a year in lost time and wasted gasoline.

I also want to repeat what Ken said earlier, because it bears repeating:

I subscribe to the "Broken Windows" approach to law enforcement that Giuliani made famous...When you let law enforcement get away with the little opressions, they start to think they can get away with the big stuff too. Before long, they get out of hand.

|6.4.05 @ 7:07PM|#

Ken Shultz asks:
Are there no bankruptcy laws?

Thanks to GWB & Co, not anymore!

http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/20/pf/bankruptcy_bill/

|6.4.05 @ 8:13PM|#

Nobody has any thoughts on my point about seat belts improving drivers' ability to control their cars?

Bueller?

|6.4.05 @ 8:33PM|#

joe:

see Isaac's comment above

or, what the hell, here it is:

"And to whoever mentioned it, I have heard that being restrained while driving may help drivers cope with crisis situations, like regaining control after driving off the pavement."

Comment by: Isaac Bartram at June 4, 2005 05:22 PM

|6.4.05 @ 8:39PM|#

db, what do you REALLY think? :)

my favorite part is that at the end of the commercials the announcer says (possibly paraphrasing a bit), "They're not doing to write tickets, they're doing it to save lives!"

Then why don't they just pull people over, give them a warning, make them put their belts on, and send them on their merry way?

That's a rhetorical question, BTW.

|6.4.05 @ 8:51PM|#

Uh, could you please explain to my crazy but principled self what is "common sense" about police blocking a well-used thoroughfare in an already-congested town during the morning rush hour, please?

Nothing. That sounds like a terrible idea. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that any policy besides the unfettered right to drive unbuckled is sensible, or even sane.

|6.4.05 @ 9:44PM|#

"Basically, I'm saying drivers shouldn't be allowed on the road unless they can afford to pay for any damages they might cause to others."

I'm saying I shouldn't go out on the road if I'm going to require the rest of society to insure my property against damage. ...Forcing other people under threat of law to pay to insure my property against damage distorts the market, and it's wrong.

P.S. Forcing other people to pay for my health, unemployment and retirement insurance also distorts the market and is also wrong. ...for the same reasons.

|6.5.05 @ 2:12AM|#

Ken Shultz, well said, god bless you.

Jennifer, while you were in southeastern VA did you ever go to VIR? I did a couple of performance driving courses there, I got to learn how to take a car to its limits, how to knock other cars off the road, and how to avoid getting knocked off the road, and I got to ram other cars blocking the read (going well over 20 mph hitting a parked car, so 20 mph isn't really all that)

There I learned that in a performance situation a seat belt does help you stay in place and control the car better, specially if you are driving a car with leather seats.

But in some situations seatbelts can make a car a death trap.

|6.5.05 @ 3:31AM|#

Obviously the question of whether buckling up should be mandatory or not should be answered by the market. If Amalgamated Turnpikes is more successful with its "Click If You Wanna" policy than United Roadways is with their "Strap In OR ELSE!" rule, the proprietors will eventually notice. Same goes for the insurers.

Some other observations:

• Insurance in Alabama may be expensive for other contributing reasons, such as that state's notoriously corrupt and politicized court system, at least as far as tort law is concerned.

• Requiring the kiddies to be restrained may make sense, and even give harried parents an excuse to get Junior and Missy to sit in one seat for the duration of the ride. But the car-seat laws imposed costs on families with several children in the affected age groups, and helps explain the fading of the station wagon from the market, to be replaced by the SUV. I come from a family of 11: two parents and nine siblings. After filling up the center seat of the old Plymouth with car seats for The Baby, and The Twins, where would my other Younger Sister, and Me-At-Age-3-And-Change get our seats belted in? If not the front seat, then the fold-down area where 3 undersized humans could fit - 4 in a pinch? Ah, but those seats, or that bench, weren't equipped with belts, let alone wide enough to accomodate car seats. Anyway I count, at least two of my older sibs would have to be strapped to the rooftop luggage rack. It'd be three if a 7-year old wasn't allowed to sit between Mom and Dad on the front bench seat, there not being any air bags back then. Too-short humans can't sit in front of one of those explod-o-pop devices, can they?

• Police peering into cars without probable cause to believe an infraction of criminal law has been committed would be considered an unreasonable search in a free society.

• Police and state troopers don't enforce non-speeding moving violations anywhere near as much as they ought to. The next time I see a driver make his turn into the nearest lane when a center or far lane is open will be the first.

• Little boys today are deprived the experience of riding shotgun with their Dad, side by side, just two guys talking about baseball and stuff. That's gotta suck.

Kevin

|6.5.05 @ 3:49AM|#

Oh, and to all who are curious about the relationship between increased perception of safety and greater risk-taking, may I recommend the late Aaron Wildavsky's work?

Kevin

|6.5.05 @ 9:20AM|#

Ken-
I'm not saying "the rest of society" should insure against damage to my car; I'm saying the guy who actually hits my car and damages it should have to pay for it. Instead, I had to pay thorugh the nose because the insurance company knew that in Alabama, if my car WAS hit by someone else it would most likely be Cletus McSisterfuck, who can't afford to pay for damages because his entire yearly car-maintenance bill consists of the one roll of duct tape he bought to re-attach his bumper to the rest of the car.

Kwais--
Never heard of VRI, no.

|6.5.05 @ 12:59PM|#

"I'm not saying "the rest of society" should insure against damage to my car; I'm saying the guy who actually hits my car and damages it should have to pay for it."

To be clear, I agree with that.

...I think there's probably a limit to that liability however. Where I live, there are a surprising number of people who drive around in cars that cost over a $100,000. If I drive around in a car that's valued at over a hundred thousand dollars, aren't I assuming some risk?

Should the law require everyone on the road to carry collision insurance sufficient to cover my $100,000 car?

"Instead, I had to pay thorugh the nose because the insurance company knew that in Alabama, if my car WAS hit by someone else it would most likely be Cletus McSisterfuck, who can't afford to pay for damages because his entire yearly car-maintenance bill consists of the one roll of duct tape he bought to re-attach his bumper to the rest of the car."

...In principle, I agree that Cletus should have to pay to fix the damage he causes to your car. If he refuses, you should have the right to take him to court.

If you want to mitigate the risk of an uninsured, broke-as-all-get-out Cletus damaging your car, you should buy insurance against uninsured drivers. If you don't, you're takin' a risk.

...The insurance law requirement forces everyone who drives, not just the guy that hit your car, to insure against damage to your car. That's distorts the market, and it's not fair.

P.S. We haven't even talked about whether insurance requirement laws are effective at keeping uninsured drivers off the road.

|6.5.05 @ 1:03PM|#

BTW Jennifer,

Southeast Viginia is one of my favorite parts of the country. I have to say I'm partial to the Valley.

...I spent some of the most important years of my life in the Shenandoah Valley, and I have family roots there. I've been to almost every state, and I haven't seen any place more beautiful than the Shenandoah Valley. ...and I haven't met any nicer people than those from Southeast Virginia.

|6.5.05 @ 4:22PM|#

Ken-
I was about 150 or 200 miles east of the Shenandoah, in the pancake-flat Tidewater area (Hampton, Newport News, etc.). The mountains are indeed beautiful, and the trifecta of Skyline, Luray and Endless Caverns is definitely worth seeing, even though the admission costs will set you back a bit.

As to what else you said--I'll agree that the guy driving a Lamborghini should assume some of the risk, as a single thoughtless fender-bender shouldn't be enough to turn a middle-class guy into a Cletus overnight. I don't know where to draw the line between my Neon and this theoretical Lamborghini, but the problem is that the uninsured Cletus basically suffers no penalty for smashing my car. I can't sue him because he owns nothing, can't garnish his wages because he hardly has any, and so I'll be paying a deductible AND higher insurance premiums.

So when you talk of personal responsibility, let me ask you: what responsibility does Cletus have to bear for costing me all this time and hassle? What incentive do poor, uninsured drivers have to make restitution for damages they cause?

|6.5.05 @ 4:40PM|#

OH, and I forgot to ask about all the MONEY Cletus costs me. What is he expected to do, or does he get off the hook all the time because he shouldn't have to take care that he can pay for reasonable damage he might cause?

|6.5.05 @ 4:41PM|#

several years ago, Fla debated and defeated a proposal for having everyone covered by some minimum level of insurance by a gas tax. noone could get out of paying for insurance, because you'd be paying every time you filled up. If you wanted or needed more than the minimum level, you'd still buy it the old - fashioned way through an insurance agent. I don't think I drove at the time (ok, maybe it's almost 20 years ago), so I didn't pay much attention to the details, but it never happened, although it seems like a good idea to me.

any thoughts?

|6.5.05 @ 8:37PM|#

Biologist-
It sounds like a good start, at least from the victims' standpoint, but there's still the fact that the Cletuses of the state are not being penalized for the damage they cause; it's not as though you can charge him a higher gas tax if he causes too many smash-ups.

|6.5.05 @ 9:23PM|#

Jennifer:

Cletus McSisterfuck (great name, by the way) can still be ticketed, and can still have his license revoked under the state's usual rules (Fla has a point penalty system. if you accrue too many points w/in a space of time, you can lose your license. points are even accrued for speeding tickets). his liability to you has already been paid when he bought gas, and the state is holding it in escrow until needed

|6.5.05 @ 9:29PM|#

Jennifer,

I'm missin' you here somehow.

...See, what I'm sayin' is that Cletus does and should have to pay for the (reasonable) damage he does to your car. He also has to pay for the damage he does to your person if, as you're walking down the sidewalk, he accidentally drops a can of paint on your head from a rooftop. Shouldn't people be allowed to paint their houses without state mandated insurance?

...but I agree, Cletus is responsible for the damage he causes you, in or out of an automobile.

If the monetary damage he causes is greater than what Cletus can ever possibly pay, he can, thank God, attempt to declare bankruptcy, other policy options have included debtors prisons and slavery. However, a judge may, and often will, decide that Cletus can pay, though with difficulty; in which case, Cletus' scant wages can be attached. Is this not as it should be?

You're right though--people with assets have a greater incentive to insure for liability because they have more assets to award should they accidentally harm someone. They also, obviously, have a greater incentive to insure against people with few assets damaging their property. I remember when I had few assets, I didn't carry any comprehensive coverage at all because my car was probably worth less than what it would cost to cover. (I did carry liability insurance.)

The question is, should everyone else in the world be made to cover Cletus? If I'm so concerned about Cletus harming me and not being able to pay, what's to stop me from buying coverage for that?

As a commercial developer, I have to do this all the time. What if someone in the middle of the night decides to dump a bunch of chemical waste in the middle of my land? For the sake of my investors, etc., I have to insure against that.

...Just because I bought insurance, does that mean that whomever polluted my property isn't responsible for damages? Certainly not!

Seat belt laws, helmet laws, laws requiring liability insurance, etc. are all a function of the mistaken belief that because society is responsible for the costs associated with these risks, society is justified in limiting these risks by law. However, society is not responsible for the damages caused when someone doesn't wear a seatbelt or helmet.

...And if I'm concerned that someone without liability insurance might hit me while I'm not wearing a seat belt or helmet, then I can, and should, buy insurance to cover that.

|6.6.05 @ 7:50AM|#

Ken-
Yes, but as I pointed out before, YOUR insurance premiums will go up if Cletus hits you and you have to file a claim. And while I'm glad that Cletus won't go to debtor's prison, I'm more worried about the problems he's caused me, rather than the problems he has solving them. If he demolishes my car, makes me miss time from work, or causes me medical problems, the fact that his wages will be garnished and I'll get five bucks a month for life isn't really going to help much, especially since that five bucks won't even cover my premium increase.

|6.6.05 @ 12:32PM|#

Jennifer:

If I may jump in here, it seems like you want to punish the "Cletuses" of the world for a crime that they have not yet committed (hitting your car), but might commit in the future. If I understand you correctly, it sounds like you want them forced into a program, not for their own good, but for your benefit. This, to me, seems quite unlibertarian.

|6.6.05 @ 12:39PM|#

Matt-
No, to repeat myself from earlier; I'm saying that if you're in a situation (like driving a 2-ton hunk of metal at speeds in excess of 60 miles per hour) where you could very easily cause serious damage to someone else, you should be able to pay for the damages you cause. How will Cletus' declaring bankruptcy help me pay for my car, my higher insurance premiums and any medical bills I acquired because he ran a red light and crashed into me?

Although I would be willing to compromise: forget about mandatory insurace, just make sure that judgments awarded in courts of law can NOT be eradicated through declaring bankruptcy.

|6.6.05 @ 1:44PM|#

"...just make sure that judgments awarded in courts of law can NOT be eradicated through declaring bankruptcy."

I plead ignorance on the specifics of bankruptcy law, but the concept itself seems rather immoral to me. So I think your proposed compromise seems just.

The main objection I had to your initial proposal was, like I stated earlier, the fact that mandatory insurance seems like a type of collective punishment for a crime not yet committed.

|6.6.05 @ 8:36PM|#

I would only add that when my premiums go up as the result of an accident, regardless of whether I was at fault, it's a function of actuarial analysis, I suspect, as much as anything else.

...I think the actuaries recognize two kinds of people, those who avoid accidents and those who don't. If I get into an accident, regardless of fault, the actuaries put me in the second category. This is their right, no?

P.S. One time, my car broke down on the freeway. I pulled off the road, that is, I wasn't even on the shoulder--I was off the pavement! I got out of the car and hiked down to the Call Box--this was before everyone had cell phones, and by the time I got back someone had totaled my car.

...The car wasn't moving when I got hit, I wasn't even in the car when I got hit. The police report quoted the vandal as saying that it was all his fault, and the insurance company dropped me anyway 'cause I was too much of a risk. Part of that was becuase of my age at the time--I'm sure--but, still, that's their right, isn't it? The insurance company shouldn't be required to insure me, should they?

|6.7.05 @ 5:51AM|#

Ken-
The guy who trashed your car should be responsible for the damages. And if the insurance company is going to drop you after your first claim, which isn't even your fault, they should at least refund all the premiums you've paid.