click_it_or_ticket Dosquatch In an automobile accident, people wearing seatbelts stand a better chance of surviving. Simply, seatbelts save lives. Wearing your seatbelt is a Good_Idea, and nobody argues this. The US federal government is currently running an advertising campaign espousing this good_idea, to the tune of half a billion dollars. Not just pushing the idea, though, but coercing people with the threat of fines, backed up by law enforcement at all levels issuing citations for those who don't play along. They're calling the program Click_It_or_Ticket. Catchy title, isn't it? Knowing that seatbelts save lives, knowing how much benefit there is to be gained from such a simple action, knowing how much of a Good_Idea it is to wear one's seatbelt, who would dare to argue with this? Who would stand up in public and denounce this? Who would be this brazen? I would. Even without the punative back end, the advertising is patronizing. Rather than offering the benefits of seatbelts in a persuasive manner, they boil it down into a pithy slogan and offer it like a mantra from a parent to a three year old. "Lefty Loosey, Righty Tighty!" I am not a three year old. I am not a ward of the state. I do not expect nor desire parental advice from my elected leaders. If I wanted constant parental input, I'd still be living at home. Such would be bad enough were it just the mollycoddling attitude, but no. There is legislation and financial penalty waiting in the wings should I eschew the advice. This is socialist nonsense, and it goes against the grain of a free society. As a member of a free society, I should have freedom of speech, freedom of movement, and freedom of choice. Those are the hallmarks. This falls under the category of choice. Apparently it is time to remind some people that freedom of choice is supposed to mean freedom of MY choice, not my freedom to pick from the choices YOU offer. That includes my freedom to make a bad choice, no matter how ill advised you may think it to be, and no matter how much danger I may place myself in. If I want to run with scissors, bungee jump, skydive, or - heavens forbid - drive without my seatbelt, I should be allowed to do so. Without compulsory pads and helmets. Without interference. Without a parachute if I so wish, and certainly without some legislative stuffed shirt crawling across my lap to buckle MY ass into MY seat in MY car. It is my bad choice to make, not yours to save me from it. Thank you, Mr. Government Man, now please go away. ~"~ 040525 ... minnesota_chris I don't mind the new rule, I don't mind the police giving out tickets for people driving unsafely. I do mind the fact that they spend tax dollars proclaiming that they will do it. I also mind the intimidating nature of these commercials, they seem to proclaim "we're going to get you." 040526 ... dosquatch "unsafe" in what context? I don't mind the police protecting public safety. Speeders, people weaving in traffic, driving at night without your headlights, sure - write the ticket. These are activities that endanger those around you. But if I am obeying every other law, in what way am I endangering you if my seatbelt is not buckled? Don't get me wrong. Seatbelts are a good idea, and I do wear mine every time I get in the car. That is not the point. It is not the seatbelt law that really bothers me, it is the implicit notion that our government is somehow responsible for henpecking my life with their vision of how I should live mine. What if we extend this to other aspects of daily life? Is it the government's responsibility to slap the cheeseburger out of your hands because it might clog your arteries? In reality, lives lost to heart disease each year is tenfold those lost in car accidents. Is it the duty of the government to ensure that you get your full 8 hours of sleep so that you are as alert and productive as possible? Should the government monitor you to make sure that you don't doggy-style with your spouse because they think it leads to moral degredation? More to the point, should they send the local police department around to peek in your bedroom window and write you a ticket if you don't do as they say? Or bust in on your holiday cookout for possession of burgers and/or burger related paraphernalia? The truth is that, in any given year, any one of us has a .015% chance of being killed an an automobile accident. We stand a higher chance of being killed by a small appliance in the home. It's a minor risk, and there are better ways to expend the money and effort. 040526 ... p2 perhaps to keep you from flying through the windshield into other lanes which would have otherwise remained unaffected? i know, highly improbably but not impossible on a side note, what about parents who don't enforce that same rule they are putting their kids in danger should that be allowed? the slogan itself isn't so bad slogans ingrain themselves into kids heads i have a few rattling around up there: buckle up, it's the law friends don't let friends drive drunk just say no stop, drop, and roll say no, then go, and tell cross on the green, not in-between only you can prevent forest fires help take a bite outta crime i'm not a chicken, you're a turkey you dad, i learned it from watching you! image of crying native american image of crouched and shivering statue of liberty now you know, and knowing is half the battle 040526 ... dosquatch I don't mind seatbelt laws for kids. They are minors, and it's our responsibility to look out for their well being because they do not have enough world experience to look out for their own. I am not a minor. I do not want you taking responsibility for my well being. That has become my duty to myself. Therein lies the difference. "Buckle up for Safety" doesn't bother me. "Buckle up, it saves lives" doesn't bother me. "Buckle up, it's the law" and I have issues. Government works best when it keeps its mitts off of things. I'm very consistent on this point. 040526 ... p2 it's true that it's irritating but consider this the people who buckle up for safety are already doing it so they are targeting those who don't really care and the only way to get them to buckle up is by threatening them actually i heard one of these commercials on the radio its theme seemed to be that the ticket is not so bad compared to what could have happened perhaps we have different commercials depending on what part of the country we're in 040526 ... dosquatch Eliciting a behavior by threat or force is called coercion. At what point did it become acceptable to coerce your neighbor into changing his behavior to suit your sense of propriety? If the only people left are the ones who really don't care, on what grounds are we threatening them and forcing them against their will? I understand what you're saying, but I'm saying that the better policy is MYOB. It always has been, and always will be. 040526 ... minnesota_chris no, I believe (and maybe it's my Scandinavian, 'love the government' side) that it's the government's job to keep us from hurting ourselves. I believe, however, that it shouldn't keep us from living (for instance, police shouldn't be able to stop you for not wearing seatbelts). You're right, our government shouldn't be slapping the cheeseburgers (or maybe, even the joints) out of our hands. But I do think they should do something about the TV advertisements with the 6 foot tall cheeseburgers, or the pizzas the size of dinner tables. You know what I mean. TV makes us inactive enough, but seeing all that food activates an insulin response which can actually make us fatter. No kidding. Do you have statistics about the horrible small appliance mortality rate? That sounds like your ass talking again. "Ghrello, mhy nahgme is Rectuhgm. Do ghyou ghave a bghreath mihnt?" 040527 ... dosquatch Nope, that was pure flippancy. Feel free to pick on it as you wish. 040527 ... vituperus I agree with Dosquatch. The "click it or ticket" ad campaign is paternalistic coersion, an insulting waste of money, and it further undermines the starry notion of American freedom. 040527 ... dosquatch < tips hat > Thank you, sir. And you managed to express my entire thought in one sentence. I stand in awe. I've gotta learn brevity like that, seriously. 040527 ... minnesota_chris uh oh, vituperus, watch out, I think you're starting to express yourself :) 040528 ... p2 so is the issue the slogan or the law? as a slogan it does what it should which is to convey the message in a simple and easy to remember way patronizing or not you will remember it if you want to argue the law then the main question should be whether not wearing a seatbelt affects anyone other than that person consider these articles: http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/dailynews/crash_costs020509.html The study showed that the costs of car crashes could be cut in half if drivers drove sober, slowed down and buckled up. Alcohol-related crashes cost $50 billion in 2000. Excessive speed cost another $40 billion, and failure to wear seat belts led to $26 billion in costs. Runge told ABCNEWS that, "the thing that we can do right now, tonight, right now, to shave $26 billion off this total is to make sure that everyone buckles his or her seatbelt. It's very simple." States that have enacted primary belt laws have seen seat belt use go up 10 to 12 percent, according to NHTSA. http://www.policystrategists.com/Seatbelt_safety_coalition.htm Passage of a primary seat belt law would result in the immediate prevention of at least two disabling injuries, traumatic brain injury (TBI) and spinal cord injury (SCI). Motor vehicle crash victims who suffer these disabling injuries have direct long-term consequences on our Medicaid budget. http://www.hometownsource.com/capitol/2001/february/0207seatbelt.html The Office of Traffic Safety estimates that upgrading the seatbelt law to primary enforcement could save 51 lives, prevent 979 injuries, and save taxpayers $88 million a year. http://www.geocities.com/thesciencefiles/seat/belts.html The fact is, injuries are a burden on your family and all Albertans who end up paying in terms of increased health care, insurance and social costs. No individual has the right to make others pay. 040528 ... dosquatch The slogan is inane, but it is the law the gripes me. ALL personal behavior laws gripe me. Don't give me all of the "it's for the public good" nonsense. This mindset that created this law is the same mindset that wants to control diet and exercise. It's the same mindset that wants to exterminate cigarettes. It's the same mindset that brings you the war on drugs and prohibition, and aren't those stalwart examples of gleaming success and fiduciary responsibility? Not wearing a seatbelt does not kill, traffic accidents kill. The answer is not making more people buckle up, the answer is reducing traffic accidents. How, by cracking down on speeders? I promise, that's not the answer. Germans routinely drive much faster than any posted speed limit in the US, yet their auto accident mortality rate is HALF of ours. Why? Because they're wearing their seatbelts? No, because they have half as many accidents. The reason has nothing to do with seatbelts or speeding. It has to do with licensing. There is a very strict, very restrictive certification process in Germany to get a driver's permit. Here in the US, if you can sign your name, identify a stop sign, and drive around the block without running over anybody in a crosswalk, the license is yours. The reason is because so many US drivers are incompetent. It's not road rage, it's not frustration with rush hour traffic, it's not your imagination. It is true. But none of this is the point. Seatbelts are not the point. This particular law is not the point. It was nothing more than the jumping off point for a rant about the underlying cause of the law. I am not advocating that you drive without your seatbelt. In fact, if you go back and actually read my first post, I say right in the first paragraph that seatbelts are a GOOD_IDEA. You absolutely should wear your seatbelt. I have no problem with public service announcements telling me so. I have a problem when it is legislated. First, because it is patronizing, and it grates against my sensibilities about free society. But mostly because it sets you up on the losing end of the Law_of_Diminishing_Returns. That's where you are dumping more and more money into a program to gain less and less ground. Eventually you reach a point of social cavitation, and you start LOSING ground because people who started out on your side start turning because frustration, sticker shock, or whatever. We have enough programs like that already. We should be trying to eliminate some, not add new ones. 040528 ... p2 i never said that you said that not wearing seatbelts was the way to go all i said was that not wearing seatbelts can affect others as well 040528 ... p2 afterall i agree with you that if it doesn't affect anyone else than it should be restricted my question is whether this really is the case 040528 ... dosquatch I want to know how many of these nimrod legislators regularly wear their seatbelts in the back of their limos. 040528 ... p2 damn change "should" to "shouldn't" 040528 ... dosquatch Of course it has an effect. The accident alone ensures that. Traffic backs up, ambulances and police roll, maybe a firetruck. You're late to work because of the traffic jam. Your boss chews you out. Your insurance goes up a nickel because Allstate had to buy two more totalled cars. Your taxes go up because we need more emergency service people. That's all before you hear on the news how the people in the accident fared. 040528 ... phil law 040528 ... p2 yes of course except i'm not talking about the accident everything you've mentioned happens regardless of whether or not a seatbelt was used and the point is if there is such an averse effect why shouldn't it be regulated? ps- i think you underestimate the power of road rage and rush hour traffic 040601 ... dafremen Apparently I was about 4 years late expressing my thoughts on the subject (see also: Drunk_driving_is_not_a_crime) Had some guy come at me sideways over my comments about him laughing at people who were beaten down by police at a protest. I told him that "I already have parents. I do NOT need another Daddy with a badge to tell me how to live my life." It's not about reducing risk or keeping people alive. If it WERE about keeping people alive...they'd start prosecuting junk food companies for promoting diabetes and heart disease (2 of the 5 top causes of death in the U.S.). 652,091 people died of Heart Disease in 2005. 75,119 people died of complications related to Diabetes. Automobile accidents accounted for 43,667 deaths. About 0.014% of the population. It wasn't even in the top 5. Meanwhile, for every person that dies, fines are collected that amount to approximately 220 years of American lives.(At $8/per hour) STOLEN from the paychecks and savings of LIVING Americans who can actually FEEL the pain. Late rent, no food, lost jobs, broken marriages (due to money matters.) And that doesn't even take into account the amount of money lost to increases in insurance premiums. It's a scam...plain and simple. You don't impose rules on 99.99% of the population in order to protect less than 2/100ths of a percent of the population from harm. Good stuff. 080911 ... . if you're in the back seat of a car and you're not wearing a seatbelt, and it crashes, you hit the seat in front of you at about the same speed as you were travelling at before you suddenly stopped. at 35mph, this probably won't kill you, but will kill the person in front of you. at 50mph, you're both dead. simply put, seat belts aren't just for your own safety. freedom of choices to harm yourself are one thing, but seat belts aren't part of that debate. 080911 ... dosquatch Yes, they are. A car traveling down the road is an inherently risky thing. It is a controlled risk, a risk that more often than not works out well, but it is still a risk, and one that you accept every time you climb in. And so do the other people in the car with you. You may be in a horrible accident and die. You probably won't, but there are no guarantees. On the whole, we consider this an "acceptable risk" or we would not continue to climb into cars and hurtle down the road. If you consider the risk unacceptable, you have the option of not traveling by car. There are things you can do to mitigate the risk. Awareness of your surroundings, defensive driving, and familiarity with your vehicle's controls and capabilities all help you avoid an accident. Again, no guarantees, you may still be in an accident. It may be very, very bad. There are things you can do to mitigate damages when you are in an accident. Driving a safer vehicle with airbags, crush zones, and a reinforced passenger cabin help. Yes, wearing your seatbelt helps. I never said it didn't. In fact, again, I said it is a good_idea. So is brushing my teeth, but I don't think that should be required by legislation either. 080911 ... . what i said is exactly what you're neglecting, which is that it is not the same kind of good_idea as brushing your teeth, and that is why it requires legislation and brushing your teeth doesn't. the blathe you just wrote only considers seatbelt wearing as a risk that one takes with one's own life, which is what i just said it isn't and you have made no (relevant) comment on that. a better analogy than brushing your teeth would be driving according to the speed limit. if you don't, you are, it is true, risking your own life, and you are also risking others, just as you are if you sit in a back seat and don't wear a seat belt. if you sit in a front seat and don't wear one, you fly out the front windscreen and could well cause further accident; the chances of this don't seem very high to me, but i don't exactly keep accident case studies at hand. more important than the low probability is preventing it from happening though. something seemed odd about daf's whole philosophy here to me, and i think it's that capitalism is not about greater good, but individual good(s). capitalism is, after all, predicated upon the individual (the cartesian subject). this idea of 'very few people die; it'd be ok if a few more people died and everyone else suffered/paid a bit less'... i wouldn't call socialist because that'd give socialism an undeservedly bad name, but it's a sort of 'net profit' scheme on a social scale. that's not the job of a capitalist government; it's job is to give every *individual* the best possible chance at life. further, i strongly dislike this approach to social problems, with its root in net gain, because it seems to logically extend into wilfully sacrifing a few for the good of the rest. 080911 ... dos OK, you suggest that I'm not taking your argument into account because I have not specifically addressed how, by not wearing a seatbelt, I'm posing a threat to others because I might fly through the air and cause another accident, the chances of which you immediately describe as "don't seem very high". Guess what? I agree wtih you. It seems to me as well more implausible than not, and I took exactly that into account when ignoring it as a straw man, but if you feel I'm selling you short by not saying so I hope this rectifies my oversight. You then move on to express some very misguided understandings of capitalism, the purposes and guiding principles thereof, and of any particular person's importance to such. I'll be happy to address them later, but I don't have the time to go into that right now. 080912 ... dafremen I liked the example one gentlemen presented somewhere that I don't recall which seems relevant to more than just vehicle safety. What he said is that regulating risk produces a people more inclined to reckless behavior. The example he gave was a hypothetical one in which he asked us to imagine two vehicles: Vehicle number one is absolutely guaranteed to survive any crash at any speed with no damage to itself or its occupants. Basically, it's the indestructi-car. Vehicle number two is absolutely guaranteed to explode in an unearthly fireball upon impact with anything, killing its occupants and leaving itself an irreparable mess. He asked us which of the two vehicles was more likely to be driven in a safe manner. His point was that the less risky we make the act of driving, the more recklessly people are going to drive. If you believe that everyone in your car is safely belted away, or that there are no drunk drivers on the road, you're going to be less observant. Maybe you'll be more inclined to chance that distracting cell phone call, put on your make up/shave while driving, steer with your knees while putting away that 99 Cent big-as-your-head bean and cheese burrito from Felipe's..etc. We have to take PERSONAL responsibility. It has to come from the INSIDE, not from some external rules or mechanisms that guide our choices, if we are to build a society not just of SAFER individuals, but of RESPONSIBLE FREE-THINKING individuals. All of that said, the number of hours lost to the state by living individuals FAR outweighs the number of lives lost to risky behaviors. Regulating the behavior of almost 100% of the people in order to save the lives of a FRACTION of a percent of the people is an absurd practice...unless of course, you're in the business of raising money for the state..or keeping people alive to work your factory's machinery and buy your glucose monitoring test strips. 080912 ... . dafremen, it's the attitude in your last paragraph that i just attacked ('screw the few, money for the majority'). dos, i can't wait to hear your defence of it, and what capitalism really is. i might just learn something here after all. my argument about people in back seats killing people in front seats wasn't a straw man. if you're not wearing a seat belt, someone's sitting in front of you and you crash, you will kill them. in what way is this not risking the lives of others? as for regulating behaviour producing risk, i couldn't disagree more. i agree with what birdman wrote a few months back on drunk_driving_is_not_a_crime that often the fact that something is illegal is the only reason one doesn't do it. a friend of mine sometimes gets very drunk and even though he can barely walk, still believes firmly he can drive - because that idiotic confidence is one effect of alcohol - but even though he thinks he could drive, he doesn't, because he doesn't want to risk getting caught. as for seat belts, by all means go to a country where belt wearing is not a legal issue and see for yourself if the absence of restrictions there has made them a less risk-taking set of drivers. in my experience, the fewer the driving regulations, the greater the recklessness of the drivers. look forward to hearing more from you. 080912 what's it to you? who go blather from