Today carried to my ears the umpteenth complaint against Mandatory Seat Belt Laws:
So I don't need anyone to tell me to wear a seatbelt...it's none of the government's business whether or not I get hurt, and who can prove that the seatbelt would protect me from a fatal injury? Besides, I have health insurance...isn't that what it's for?
Yes, there are certainly quite a few people who are irrational and downright lazy when it comes to seat belts. You're only fooling yourself if you believe you're safer not wearing a seat belt.
I started wearing my seat belt all the time over twenty years ago. The obvious benefits finally sank into my thick skull. But when states started passing laws mandating that I had to wear a seat belt, I was irate. It's my choice to wear a seat belt. I don't need the nanny state telling me that I'm not allowed to be stupid.
Sadie continues:
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, increasing the national seat belt use rate to 90 percent from the current 68 percent would prevent an estimated 5,536 fatalities, 132,670 injuries and save the nation $8.8 billion annually.
So we both agree that we as individuals and also collectively as a society would be better off wearing our seat belts. But should the state force us to wear them? Here's Sadie's justification:
Those who refuse to wear seatbelts often make this choice as a matter of "personal freedom." Yet, like any constitutional right, the freedoms end where others are injured or killed.
Excuse me? I don't want to get thrown through my windshield, or tossed around the cabin of my truck like a ping pong ball, but Sadie fails to show how that is going to kill or injure someone else.
We agree on her next point that children need to be protected. Hey, if you want to be stupid, that's one thing. But if you're too lazy to strap in your child, or don't have the parenting skills to discipline your child to wear their seat belts, you should be punished — severely. On this point, I think our current laws are too weak. It should be very, very painful if you're caught with unrestrained children in the car.
So here's Sadie's suggestion:
Politically Incorrect Modest Proposal: Congress should carve out create an exception to the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act of 1986, where hospitals have the legal right to refuse medical treatment to unbelted drivers or passengers injured in an automobile accident. Of course, this wouldn't apply to children...who generally don't know better if their parents permit them to go unbelted. This may seem Draconian, but in my not-so-humble opinion, some tough lovin' would settle this issue very quickly.
I have my doubts, the Hypocratic Oath being what it is, that you'll find very many medical professionals who will refuse to treat crash victims, regardless of whether they were wearing seat belts. Plus, how are they supposed to determine in the Emergency Room that the patient wasn't wearing one?
Sadie's heart is in the right place, though. We need something besides laws to encourage people to wear seat belts, or at least protect society from bearing the costs they impose upon us through their irresponsibility.
My proposal? Health and life insurance companies should exclude coverage for insureds who are killed or injured in an automobile accident, but weren't wearing their seat belts. This allows medical treatment to go forward at the time of the injury, and gives some time to determine whether seat belts were used.
The hole in my proposal are those who already depend on the government (or other handouts) to pay for their health care. I'm not sure how to address that. But laws requiring seat belt usage strike me as the wrong way to accomplish the goal of getting people to wear seat belts.
