Saet Belt Tyranny
Massachusetts is in the news today because the Senate of the General Court (the Massachusetts version of the legislature) had passed a sweeping change to the mandatory seat belt law that would have allowed police officers to pull over drivers merely for not wearing the seat belt. The current law in Massachusetts allows for citation of those who do not wear seat belts only if they are stopped for other reasons. Most states, with the exception of New Hampshire, have mandatory seat belt laws for adults and many allow what is termed "primary enforcement" that allows a police officer to pull over a driver for not wearing the seat belt.
But the seat belt has become a form of tyranny in our nation. While no one can deny that seat belts have saved lives, it also cnnot be denied that seat belts have cost lives and the quality of life after an accident. There is an entire medical condition related to the diagnosis of "seat belt syndrome." In the old days, when only lap belts were used, the syndrome consisted of some form of paralyzation due to a traumatic separation of the spinal column upon impact. This spinal separation was caused by the restrain of the lap belt. Today's version of the "seat belt syndrom" includes not only some form of traumatic spinal separation (which is now much more rare of an occurrence, but happens none-the-less), but also trauma to the abdomen (causing internal bleeding, bowel obstruction (due to clotting, bruising, or tortion of the small or large intestines), lung injury, neck injury or cardiac injury. All of these injuries can cause death, permanent disability, paralysis and major impact on the quality of life.
The public rationale for the mandatory seat belt laws is that is saves lives and money for the long-term care of those injured in motor vehicle accidents. The primary reasoning behind this rationale was that seat belts prevented persons from being thrown out of the vehicle, often through the windshield with dramatic head injuries. The private rationale for the seat belt law, especially in those states where there is "primary enforcement," is that the "click it or ticket" campaign raises funds for the local, county and state coffers.
But the real secret of the seat belt laws is that they are the product of insurance lobbying. The insurance companies lobbied like hell to force seat belt laws through state and federal legislation (the fed withholds funds for states that do not fully meet federal seat belt standards). At the time, these insurance companies figured they would save a bundle on dealing with head trauma cases. But now, they are finding, especially with the rising costs of health care, that this is not enough.
But what our lawmakers forgot when pushing this form of paid-for tyranny down our throats is our basic rights of choice and self determination.
It was one thing for the "Green Cross" of the National Safety Council to sponsor education and ads about the benefits of safety belts, for the Department of Transportation to provide education and public service ads, etc. But when the US Congress passed legislation that tied funding to state enforcement of seat belt laws, and most states "stepped and fetched" to make sure they got the funding, our basic right to determine our own destiny was trampled upon in the process.
Let us examine this as a principle and precedent in law:
1. The government (state or federal) does not ordinarily have the authroirty to force a person to undergo a medical procedure that has even minimal risks of harm, death, or dramtic change of the quality of life without first presenting overwhelming evidence of "compelling interest" that supercedes the individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution (and state constitutions).
If a person has cancer, the government cannot order them to undergo surgery, chemotherapy or radiation. If a person has a disease, the government cannot compel treatment except in extraordinary circumstances. In a medical treatment, the government requires medical personnel and facilities to explain the procedure, the associated risks, the risk of negative effects and outcomes, the potential for positive outcomes, and then requires the individual to provide consent before treatment can be effected.
But in the case of mandatory seat belt use, the government has not provided us with the same basic rights. We do not have the right to make the decision about how we want to live our lives. In the case of medical treatment, the vast majority of people choose to undergo treatment in spite of the risks as they are explained. But in seat belt laws, we are not allowed a choice by most states. The choice regarding how much risk we are willing to bear is taken away from us and we are forced--nay, coerced--to undergo the risk of spinal separation, bowel obstruction, internal bleeding, cardiac or lung injury and the risk of death without any say in the matter.
While I often wear my seat belts, I sometimes choose not to do so, risking the ticket rather than the potential life altering effects. I know that if I am thrown from the vehicle, my risks of injury are great, but actually only slightly greater (statistically speaking) than the risk of any these other conditions from wearing the seat belts. In fact, the government knows that the most effective way of reducing these injuries is not the seat belt, but in all-around air bags, with mandatory safety or booster seats for children. But has the government arm reached out to force the vehicle industries to install all-around air bags? No, the powrerful automotive and truck indsurties have their lobbyists in Washington pushing for seat belt tyranny rather than mandatory consumer protection.
Now am I saying people should not wear seat belts? Absolutely not. I am saying that the decision to do so should be left up to the adult individual, that a police officer should not be allowed to pull over an otherwise completely innocent person for not wearing the device, and that the local, county and state governments should not be allowed to raise funds by the "click it or ticket" campaigns... and that insurance comnpany control over our lives should not be government-sponsored.
In Massachusetts, Chip Ford successfully led a campaign to repeal the first version of mandated seat belt law by citizen iniitative and ballot referendum, only to have the General Court pass a different version of the law in the very next session, ignoring the will of the people in favor of obtaining federal funds. In New Hampshire, the motto "Live Free Or Die" won out and the mandate only applies to persons under the age of 18 years, thus meeting the minimum federal requirements, but suffering the withholding of some federal funding on principle.
Madatory seat belt laws are a form of tyranny, an invasion of privacy, and an unjust favor for the insurance and vehicle industries.
But the seat belt has become a form of tyranny in our nation. While no one can deny that seat belts have saved lives, it also cnnot be denied that seat belts have cost lives and the quality of life after an accident. There is an entire medical condition related to the diagnosis of "seat belt syndrome." In the old days, when only lap belts were used, the syndrome consisted of some form of paralyzation due to a traumatic separation of the spinal column upon impact. This spinal separation was caused by the restrain of the lap belt. Today's version of the "seat belt syndrom" includes not only some form of traumatic spinal separation (which is now much more rare of an occurrence, but happens none-the-less), but also trauma to the abdomen (causing internal bleeding, bowel obstruction (due to clotting, bruising, or tortion of the small or large intestines), lung injury, neck injury or cardiac injury. All of these injuries can cause death, permanent disability, paralysis and major impact on the quality of life.
The public rationale for the mandatory seat belt laws is that is saves lives and money for the long-term care of those injured in motor vehicle accidents. The primary reasoning behind this rationale was that seat belts prevented persons from being thrown out of the vehicle, often through the windshield with dramatic head injuries. The private rationale for the seat belt law, especially in those states where there is "primary enforcement," is that the "click it or ticket" campaign raises funds for the local, county and state coffers.
But the real secret of the seat belt laws is that they are the product of insurance lobbying. The insurance companies lobbied like hell to force seat belt laws through state and federal legislation (the fed withholds funds for states that do not fully meet federal seat belt standards). At the time, these insurance companies figured they would save a bundle on dealing with head trauma cases. But now, they are finding, especially with the rising costs of health care, that this is not enough.
But what our lawmakers forgot when pushing this form of paid-for tyranny down our throats is our basic rights of choice and self determination.
It was one thing for the "Green Cross" of the National Safety Council to sponsor education and ads about the benefits of safety belts, for the Department of Transportation to provide education and public service ads, etc. But when the US Congress passed legislation that tied funding to state enforcement of seat belt laws, and most states "stepped and fetched" to make sure they got the funding, our basic right to determine our own destiny was trampled upon in the process.
Let us examine this as a principle and precedent in law:
1. The government (state or federal) does not ordinarily have the authroirty to force a person to undergo a medical procedure that has even minimal risks of harm, death, or dramtic change of the quality of life without first presenting overwhelming evidence of "compelling interest" that supercedes the individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution (and state constitutions).
If a person has cancer, the government cannot order them to undergo surgery, chemotherapy or radiation. If a person has a disease, the government cannot compel treatment except in extraordinary circumstances. In a medical treatment, the government requires medical personnel and facilities to explain the procedure, the associated risks, the risk of negative effects and outcomes, the potential for positive outcomes, and then requires the individual to provide consent before treatment can be effected.
But in the case of mandatory seat belt use, the government has not provided us with the same basic rights. We do not have the right to make the decision about how we want to live our lives. In the case of medical treatment, the vast majority of people choose to undergo treatment in spite of the risks as they are explained. But in seat belt laws, we are not allowed a choice by most states. The choice regarding how much risk we are willing to bear is taken away from us and we are forced--nay, coerced--to undergo the risk of spinal separation, bowel obstruction, internal bleeding, cardiac or lung injury and the risk of death without any say in the matter.
While I often wear my seat belts, I sometimes choose not to do so, risking the ticket rather than the potential life altering effects. I know that if I am thrown from the vehicle, my risks of injury are great, but actually only slightly greater (statistically speaking) than the risk of any these other conditions from wearing the seat belts. In fact, the government knows that the most effective way of reducing these injuries is not the seat belt, but in all-around air bags, with mandatory safety or booster seats for children. But has the government arm reached out to force the vehicle industries to install all-around air bags? No, the powrerful automotive and truck indsurties have their lobbyists in Washington pushing for seat belt tyranny rather than mandatory consumer protection.
Now am I saying people should not wear seat belts? Absolutely not. I am saying that the decision to do so should be left up to the adult individual, that a police officer should not be allowed to pull over an otherwise completely innocent person for not wearing the device, and that the local, county and state governments should not be allowed to raise funds by the "click it or ticket" campaigns... and that insurance comnpany control over our lives should not be government-sponsored.
In Massachusetts, Chip Ford successfully led a campaign to repeal the first version of mandated seat belt law by citizen iniitative and ballot referendum, only to have the General Court pass a different version of the law in the very next session, ignoring the will of the people in favor of obtaining federal funds. In New Hampshire, the motto "Live Free Or Die" won out and the mandate only applies to persons under the age of 18 years, thus meeting the minimum federal requirements, but suffering the withholding of some federal funding on principle.
Madatory seat belt laws are a form of tyranny, an invasion of privacy, and an unjust favor for the insurance and vehicle industries.
posted by Jim Downey at 4:30 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home