Legislators are currently trying to pass a law in New Hampshire that would require drivers to wear seat belts while driving. New Hampshire is currently the only state in the US without a seat belt law. One would think that a law like this would pass relatively easily since all the other states have one and it’s in the name of safety. However, there is quite a bit of opposition to the passage of such a law.
People in New Hampshire like to live by their motto “Live Free or Die” and therefore have felt that it was their own decision on whether or not they should wear seat belts. Those who are firm believers in individualism are the main opponents to the passage of a seat belt law. They claim that wearing a seat belt hasn’t been proven to save more lives than not wearing a seat belt. Opponents cling to the freedom to choose whether or not they wear a seat belt, claiming that this liberty is part of what gives New Hampshire its identity.
Those in favor of passing such a law argue that seat belts do save lives. According to the article, “in 2007, at least 70% of those who died in traffic accidents in the state weren't wearing seat belts.” They believe that any safety benefit that seat belts provide outweigh any financial cost to the state. Some seat belt law supporters say that the state motto doesn’t carry much weight anymore and that opponents should look at the facts and vote in favor of safety.
This law should end up passing, making New Hampshire the fiftieth and final state to have a seat belt law. The law has already passed once in the House. If it passes once more in the House, the bill will then be sent to the Senate to be voted upon. Voters should see that the benefits of a seat belt law outweigh any detriments. Though there is no statistical evidence that seat belts save lives, what if they do? By instituting a seat belt law, lives will be saved. If the state doesn’t pass the law, then the lives that could be saved by seat belts won’t be saved. Not passing a seat belt law risks lives, while passing one has the opportunity to save lives. Legislators should therefore pass this law, ignoring any protests of a loss of freedom. Safety is more important than freedom in this scenario.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123733649650564223.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
In this instance, isn’t safety interchangeable with freedom? I agree with you in that “voters should see that the benefits of a seat belt law outweigh any detriments,” and that they should become the final and fiftieth state to pass this law. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has found that seat belt use can lower the risk of death for those traveling in the front seats of cars by 45 percent, and reduces the risk of non-fatal injuries by 50 percent for the same group.
I think that New Hampshire’s motto “Live Free or Die” being used as an argument against passing a law to make wearing seat belts in a car is a little ridiculous; they have a libertarian view on behavior it obviously seems, where legislation telling them what to do and how to act in their own state is not something the residents of New Hampshire are very fond of. The state would also receive $3.7 million in federal money if they enacted this seat belt law, so if their attitude on independence and resistance is deterring them from enacting it, the money alone should be an excellent reason.
Safety while driving is obviously of extreme importance. The fact that people actually claim that “wearing a seat belt hasn’t been proven to save more lives than not wearing a seat belt” is absolutely ludicrous. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that seat belts save over 11,000 lives a year. Wearing a seat belt also helps the driver maintain control of the vehicle in a car crash (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/airbags/Seatbelt%20Broch%20Web/nonpolice.html). You write: “though there is no statistical evidence that seat belts save lives, what if they do?” There is no question as to whether seat belts save lives. There is a plethora of statistical evidence about the effects of wearing seat belts; check the NHTSA website.
Opponents of a seat belt law in New Hampshire do not want to sacrifice their freedom of choice and that can certainly be understood. However, a look at the bigger picture is necessary when concerning matters of life and death such as driving safety. This law should absolutely be passed in the House and then again in the Senate. While on the subject of driving safety in New Hampshire, their laws concerning motorcycles should be reviewed. New Hampshire is one of three states (NH, IL, IA) without a partial or universal motorcycle helmet law (http://www.iihs.org/laws/helmetusecurrent.aspx). The number of times that motorcycle users pull over to the side of the highway when crossing the state border from Massachusetts to New Hampshire and remove their helmets is absolutely absurd. New Hampshire categorizes itself as a state that promotes the liberties of its citizens. While admirable, it is more important for NH to categorize itself as a state that advocates protecting its citizens from potential harm on New Hampshire roads. Sacrificing freedom as it relates to motor vehicle safety is something that should be done without conflict; New Hampshire does not want its license plates to begin reading “Live Free and Die.”
New Hampshire needs to conform to the rest of the country by immediately enacting a seatbelt law. Laws are one of the strongest forms of deterrence, and simply enacting the law will cause many more people to wear seatbelts, even though the likelihood that they will be caught by police officers and fined is minimal. There is a great deal of data that supports the fact that when people get in accidents, they are much more likely to survive and even escape without serious injuries if they are wearing seatbelts. Approximately 63% of people killed during automobile accidents are not wearing seatbelts, and even freedom can not be sacrificed for this incredible total amount of lives that could be saved simply by taking 4 seconds to strap on a safety device that is barely noticeable once the driver begins driving(http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/seat_belts.html).
There have been arguments made that seat belts actually cause accidents. After the first states enacted seatbelt laws back in the 1970s, the number of accidents has actually increased because people feel they are safer and drive more recklessly when they are strapped to the car. However, more importantly, the number of fatalities caused by car crashes dramatically declined because the safety involved with the belt outweighed the increase in accidents. New Hampshire is not an isolated state, and its citizens are not immune to people who choose to wear seatbelts and drive recklessly in their state. If everyone in New Hampshire chose to have the freedom not to wear seatbelts and drive safely, then this problem would go away. There is no way to force everyone to go without a seatbelt, so the only other alternative would be to force everyone to wear them, no matter what the supposed impact on freedom is.
The issue with making seat belts and motorcycle helmets mandatory is that both of these things are designed for one’s own safety. If someone is willing to sacrifice their own safety for comfort then it should be beyond the right of the government to force them to do otherwise. Cancer patients are never forced to do chemotherapy although this has been shown to improve the safety and survival chance of patients. Many people feel that they would prefer to be in comfort rather than improve their chance of survival. Why should this apply to some situations while not others? If a legal adult is willing to sacrifice their safety then it would be against their rights to do so. The number of motorcycle riders who remove their helmets when crossing into New Hampshire is an argument for the number of people who truly believe that riding a motorcycle without a helmet is a better experience. New Hampshire is a state that encourages low government involvement and this is just the sort of law which goes against what they represent.
This article is absurd. There should be no question that the seat belt law should be passed. Reason number one- seatbelts save lives! This article notes that in New Hampshire, “70% of those who died in traffic accidents in the state weren't wearing seat belts.” Also, “Safety belts when used properly reduce the number of serious traffic injuries by 50 percent and fatalities by 60-70 percent” (http://www.jmu.edu/safetyplan/vehicle/generaldriver/safetybelt.shtml). It is also estimated that seatbelts save over 9,500 lives per year (http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/seat_belts.html). Clearly you must be joking when you say “there is no statistical evidence that seat belts save lives.” Also, the fact that New Hampshire’s population is growing so rapidly only reiterates the fact that a seatbelt law is needed. More drivers on the road only increases the chance for an accident. Reason number two, 3.7 million dollars from the federal government. This amount of money can definitely help New Hampshire’s economy, and should extinguish any opposing argument.
The passing of a seatbelt law should definitely be done in New Hampshire. This would help save many lives, and would also help the economy of the state. If New Hampshire residents feel that this is invading their rights as citizens, then they should suck it up and pay the 25 dollar fine. If not, they should at least be thankful that the government is looking out for them.
In response to Otto's comment, I have to say that the issue here isn't necessarily just about personal safety. A seat belt law is a way of increasing safety for as many drivers as possible. The concern isn't with personal safety, but rather collective safety. The state is trying to make driving safer for all its citizens because it cares about the well-being of its residents. People should not be objecting to such a measure, even if wearing a seat belt is less comfortable than the alternative. The state is trying to protect its residents, not take away their freedoms. Relating this to cancer treatment is a bit of a leap, as getting chemotherapy costs hundreds of dollars, while wearing a seat belt doesn't cost anything. Chemotherapy is also a lot more uncomfortable than wearing a seat belt. The two things are in completely different leagues.
I will say the same thing as Kevin "This article is absurd", but for a completely different reason.
How is there only 1 person arguing my side?
IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO WEAR A SEATBELT THAT IS YOUR OWN STUPID DECISION!
Anyone who says that seat belts don't save lives are just idiots, but those idiots are correct when they say that government has no right to enact or enforce such a law. Like, really everyone, let's think about this. If someone does not wish to wear a seat belt, it is hurting no one but him or her self. You are not being affected, the government is not being affected. It should not be the government's decision if you wear it or not.
Ask yourself, if some guy in New Hampshire doesn't wear his seat belt, who is it hurting besides himself?
Then again I wouldn't expect anything more from a society that deems it illegal to take your own life, or restricts the sale of drugs yet finds no fault in selling cigarettes or alcohol, both of which kill more lives every year than all illegal drugs combined.
By the way, I have never got into a car without putting on my seatbelt, why? Well i guess because I feel like its a smart thing to do, I don't need a law to tell me to stop being a moron.
Fight NH, for just a small, small bit of freedom.
I strongly agree with all those that promoted the passing of the law for the following reason: it is a privilege to be on the road. One has the freedom to get in the car and get on the road (provided he or she has a valid license), but then he or she must conform to the rules of the road.
A government is supposed to create a safe and prosperous environment for its people, while walking the line between the creation of this environment and extreme involvement in the lives of its citizens. A government like ours cannot and does not force people to drive a car. You want freedom? There it is, the freedom to choose to be in a car or not in a car. Anything beyond that (within reason) can and should be monitored by the government. That includes a seat belt law. Should a person want to utilize a road, he or she should be expected to follow the rules of that road. And if that person doesn't like those rules, then he or she should not drive.
Another important aspect is that, generally speaking a government is responsible for a road. This further supports the thought that it is a privilege to drive on a road. If the government must oversee the road, and it must; why can't the government implement a few laws to promote general safety?
A final argument is a response to Brett's comment:
"Ask yourself, if some guy in New Hampshire doesn't wear his seat belt, who is it hurting besides himself?"
Upon first glance that makes sense. But think about it for a second. As people, were are all interconnected. If I'm a parent with a naive teenager, I want a law that will encourage my teenager to wear a seat belt. His or her death or injury affects more people than just the dead or injured. In promoting basic safety through this law, the government is not only helping the individual, but also those affected by the individual. To tie in with that, some people just don't understand the implications of going without a seat belt, like the teenager in the example. So yes, to go without a seat belt in New Hampshire is that person's own stupid decision, but it may be an uninformed decision. The law looks to prevent that.
In closing, we had a class discussion on the role of representatives. Generally, we agreed they should make decisions for the broad population because these people are more educated and better know the situation. Why then can the educated in the field of transportation not push us in the direction of safety? They know better than we do, much like representatives do.
"If I'm a parent with a naive teenager, I want a law that will encourage my teenager to wear a seat belt."
As a parent, tell your teenager the advantages of wearing a seat belt. And it is the government's role to advertise and even advocate young teens to wear a seat belt by presenting the advantages of doing so, just as D.A.R.E does in elementry school with drug prevention. It is not their job to tell you to do it (or not to do it, in the case of drugs), and administer penalties for not making an attempt to protect your life.
It is the government's job to protect its citizens, indeed, I agree, as I stated in the torture response, but to protect them from others. It is not the government's job, however, to protect the citizens from themselves. That is just ridiculous.
I would like to make a quick parallel to iRobot, a movie starring Will Smith. This movie takes place in the future where each human starts to have robots in their homes to help them with daily tasks. In the movie, the robots are programmed with basic laws, including protecting human beings, much like the government. In the movie the robots realize that in order to protect humans they must implement curfews and keep them in their homes at certain dangerous times. This is the trend that our government is taking. Although being forced to wear a seat belt is such a minor order and really not a big deal, it is a stepping stone to larger, harsher, and more ridiculous protective acts.
Study Nazi Germany right before the 11 million were killed, at some point people need to speak up to protect their freedoms no matter how small. When the German army told its citizens they had to wear a yellow star on their sleave with the word "Jood" on it meaning Jew, no one saw an issue because if they didn't wear the star and were Jewish, they were killed. So it was in that person's best interest to wear the yellow star around Germany. When a Jew was told he needed a permit to travel, no one saw an issue because it was only a permit, and if they didn't have one and tried to travel, they would be killed. Then the laws got worse and worse...(http://www.cympm.com/rules.html)
Yes that example is much more extreme but involves the same principle, government regulation that restrict personal freedoms should not be tolerated, even if it is in the best interest of the person himself.
As I'm sure it quite apparent, I feel very strongly about this issue and apologize if any of what I have written or the way in which it was written upsets anyone. I respect all of your viewpoints and James you made some great points. Haha, and for any of you who were planning on saying, "uhh Brett you're being politically correct", No, I'm just being polite.
This is a question of personal liberty and personal responsibility. The government was put place to provide national defense and social programs. It taxes to raise funds and makes laws to protect its citizens. The government was not put in place to take the American people by the hand and walk them through everyday decisions by threatening them with fines and penalties. The choice of wearing a seatbelt is a citizen's choice. If people refuse to wear a seatbelt then they will be subject to the consequences. There can be no questions about informed decision making because the safety benefits of wearing a seatbelt are quite obvious, you won't fly through the windshield when in the event of a car accidnet. This issue is about personal responsibilty and personal choice, much like smoking cigarettes. It is not the governments role to be wasting resources making laws that restrict civil liberties in order to eliminate simple choices from everyday American life. Either people wear them, or they refuse to; they will reap the benefits or the consequences regardless. Government has been overstepping its boundaries by creating laws regarding personal decisions. If people have reason to not wear seatbelts, then that it their decision and it should be respected by the government.
Post a Comment