McElroy Says Seatbelt Regulations Misguided at Best

hwyhobo March 7th, 2008 2:18 PM Link

No seatbelts, no lawsuit? What self-respecting lawyer in Washington, D.C. will allow that?

Bill Eccles March 7th, 2008 2:29 PM Link

The Serviceman’s Group Life Insurance (for military members) was pretty specific: get killed in an auto accident without your seatbelt, and they wouldn’t pay a dime, whether on base or off base.

Now that’s sensible, and the insurance companies could implement it themselves without any legislation.

Clint March 7th, 2008 2:35 PM Link

I think this argument is a bit of wishful thinking. People who don’t wear seatbelts on a regular basis just do not have common sense. It’s already against the law to drive without a seatbelt everywhere in the U.S., and it’s already a very good idea to wear one for safety reasons. If you increase the penalty for driving without a seatbelt (which is already illegal), this won’t magically give a stupid or careless person the amount of common sense they need to remember to buckle up before they hit the road.

The main driver for seatbelt use isn’t even addressed in the article, which is primary vs. secondary enforcement laws. In U.S. states with primary laws, a police officer can stop you if he sees you don’t have a seatbelt on. With secondary laws, an officer can only cite you for no seat belt if he has already pulled you over for another offense. Seatbelt use is already above 80% in the U.S. because of the increasing number of states with primary laws (according to NHTSA, 2004). However, I would think that the percentage of people who have to be legally threatened in order to regularly use a seatbelt is fairly small.

The author seems to indicate that fixing the legal system will somehow solve all of our problems and put us on par with the safer Western Europe and Japan (although he cites absolutely zero statistics or facts that back up this claim). He also seems to think that crash testing is a huge waste of money, since most people who die in crashes aren’t wearing seatbelts (neglecting the also important and difficult to measure number of people who were in accidents but did not become injured or die due to a car that was made safer through crash testing). My arguement is that the car and driver are the two elements to safety. We test cars all the time, but how much effort do we place into educating, training, and evaluating drivers? Not enough, in my opinion.

FLASHPOINT March 7th, 2008 2:54 PM Link

Why spend all this time and energy trying to save 42,000 people who are too STUPID to wear a seatbelt? Repeal all the seatbelt laws and award the “victims” a Darwin award, posthumously, if necessary.

A. Wofford March 7th, 2008 3:02 PM Link

Educated Drivers? HA!

Fines, and even jail time, are no deterant for a lot of bad drivers. But take away their ability to sue, and I’ll bet they change their thinking next time their car gets totaled and no one is there to hand them a check.

Leave it to the lawmakers to take any option with a fine, rather than a real detterant. If someone significantly breaks the law, take away some of their rights. That may be the last true punishment left.

Automobile News Update » McElroy Says Seatbelt Regulations Misguided at Best March 7th, 2008 5:27 PM Link

[…] […]

Alexander López March 7th, 2008 6:17 PM Link

There’s a saying: “Our biggest problem these days is stupidity. Why don’t we just remove all those safety labels and let the problem solve itself?”

By the way, not only in Europe laws are applied the way the author wirites. Last year, an insurance company in Argentina refused to pay a young woman who was severely injured after an accident. She appealed to the Supreme Court, and lost because she wasn’t wearing the seatbelt.

Darwin awards, anyone?

jackrabbit March 7th, 2008 8:55 PM Link

Here are some interesting facts pertaining to the topic:

The U S Department of Transportation keeps data on traffic accidents including the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) with fatalities since 1975 which number over a half million (averaging 45,000 per year in the US). Each year there are about 18 million property damage crashes with 1.7 million injuries. The risk of accidents for young drivers is greater in all categories of accidents, 18 yr olds having 400% more accidents than 40 yr olds. Analysis of such data permits reasonable estimation of factors which influence safety such as vehicle mass and the use of seatbelts. Some interesting human factors come into play. For example, given a severe crash, the driver of a 900 kg car is about 2.6 times more likely to be killed than the driver of an 1800 kg car. But overall data indicates that 1.7 times as many drivers of 900 kg cars are killed, compared to 1800 kg cars, indicating that drivers of light cars are more cautious and less likely to have such accidents. In seatbelt statistics, it must be factored in that persons who choose not to use seatbelts are more likely to have accidents out of a higher general bent toward risk taking.

Source: Leonard Evans, “The Science of Traffic Safety”, The Physics Teacher 26, October 1988, Page 431.

Dave March 7th, 2008 9:11 PM Link

Ah, Europe, how I miss thee…

Anyway, it’s more than Seatbelt laws. In most countries, it takes about $1000 just to get your Learner’s permit, which you have to keep clean (no accidents, no moving violations) for a year before you can get your permanent. Couple with that the fact the Police can ‘lollipop’ you (stop you with a reflective disk, AKA ‘Lollipop’) as you are flying down the road without warning and without cause. Add to that the strict enforcement of DUI/DWI incidents, and the fact that public drunks are treated worse than lepers, and you have the formula for success…

Our ‘freedoms’ are also our downfall. This is why so many service members who get stationed outside the US tend to move outside the US when our enlistments are up.

hwyhobo March 7th, 2008 11:41 PM Link

Dave, are you implying that the enforcement of DUI/DWI incidents is not strict? I don’t know where you live, but in SF Bay Area you do not want to be caught DUI. Second offense can put you in San Quentin (I know personally of such a case).

This is why so many service members who get stationed outside the US tend to move outside the US when our enlistments are up.

Really? Stricter enforcement of traffic laws? And I thought it was the girls they met while abroad. Wow, one learns something new everyday…