Freedom Alert: 06-11-05
From:
Brendan Trainor
Chair, Libertarian Party of
(775)786-1976
(phone/fax)
(775) 626-1776 (fax)
brendant@brendantrainor.com
www.lpnevada.org
Do Seat Belt Laws Save Lives?
Yesterday,
the 5th of June, marked the last
day of Clickit or Ticket. If I had been
stopped by law enforcement, what would the officer be looking for? A terrorist? A thief? No,
he might have ticketed me simply for not wearing a seat belt.
Nationwide,
over 12,000 agencies spent time on this campaign. Backed by “federal funds” (in
quotes because all federal money comes, directly or indirectly, from you and I) to the
tune of 26 million dollars, the campaign diverts law enforcement from more serious
pursuits. It involves tough talking PSA’s about how seat belts save lives. Yes, seat
belts can save lives, but do they always? And,
more important, do seat belt laws save lives?
And, by the way, is it really the job of government to save lives?
“The
government,” as Sir Josiah Stamp once reminded us, “are very keen on amassing
statistics. They collect them, raise them to the nth
degree, take the cube root, and prepare wonderful diagrams. But you must remember that
every one of these figures comes in the first instance from the village watchman, who puts
down what he damn well pleases.”
Government
statistics on highway fatalities are of necessity subjective reconstructions made after
the fact. Police procedures vary by departments, and change periodically. Do those marked
as “occupant fatally ejected from motor vehicle” include pedestrians, cyclists,
motorcyclists, moped users, and so on? Some studies have determined that deaths among
belted drivers have been underreported by 50%, and ejection statistics over reported by
more than 100%.
The
“crash test” dummies who tell us on television “Don’t be a dummy,
buckle up!” are familiar finger waggers. But, do tests with dummies reflect the real
world? Or is this the “representative fallacy”, of assuming that engineered
situations can accurately predict the messy world of actual events?
Does the public discourse involve countervailing statistics?
The 1992 GAO study that declared seat belt laws “work” reviewed only 44 of 2,500 available studies. Certainly, a 1984 study by J. Tolonen and Associates of Finland, which concluded that “ …cervical spine injuries were more common causes of death in victims who had used seat belts than in those who had not (21.3% to 13.7%). “ was not considered. Or the University of Montreal Laboratory on Transportation Safety assessment of 1987 data that concluded that 87% of vehicle occupants who had received neck injuries in accidents were harnessed, and that women suffered 40% more of those injuries than men.
The
New Hampshire, the only state
without any adult seat belt law, is the fourth safest state. Of the twenty safest states,
half have primary seat belt laws, the other ten, including the two safest states, do not.
From my
review of the evidence, I have concluded that a seat belt will very likely save my life in
a head on collision, at high speeds. But, in other types of accidents, such as a rear end
collision or sideswipe at lower speeds, I think that wearing a seat belt could increase my
chance of death, or injury, due to rapid bending of my neck or spine. The government will
not allow me to make these distinctions. During Clickit or Ticket, I can be stopped, in
some states even at a traffic checkpoint, and ticketed just for not wearing a seatbelt. This process
would take 15 minutes of a cop’s time, 15 minutes multiplied by thousands of times he
could have been looking for a murderer or rapist. Can we be blamed for inquiring whether
these relatively easy fines collected are really about safety, or just revenue?
For a Libertarian, it is problematic to assert that government’s role is to save lives. In the twentieth century, governments of all stripes have killed two hundred million people, all in the name of a higher good, such as equality, or democracy. Would we not be better served if government would stick to protecting our rights, including our right as individuals to assess risk, without passing laws that take away that right in the name of saving lives?
Perhaps
safety would be better promoted by government if it simply
maintained the roads better, as many states with high accident rates are
rural, with poorly lit, narrow, curving roads. Rapid emergency response to accidents can greatly
reduce fatalities, and privatization of emergency services can improve on response times.
Most of all, the medical insurance system needs reform so that all of us do not carry the
burden of medical costs of irresponsible drivers. One size fits all laws that take away,
rather than protect, individual choice and responsibility such as Clickit or Ticket are
definitely not the answer.
This is sent by the Libertarian
Writers Bureau of the Libertarian Party of