Oppostion Constructives

The seat belt law is in place because seat belts do affect not just us but others. 

There is a claim that “The seatbelt law assumes that motorists are not aware of the benefits of seat belt use and are unable to make correct decisions regarding their own personal safety in vehicles”

We will return to this comment later but I want you to think about it as we talk about all the points that were brought up.

This articles premise was that the government is violating our personal rights.  Unfortunately it was taken from a testimony written by Erik Skrum.  Erik Skrum commented on behalf of The National Motorists Association.  He is a communications director, not a scientist nor a research analyst.  But a person who stands in front of people, trying to persuade by whatever means possible, to throw you off track.  He has no credibility other than being a spokesperson for TNMA.  For that matter The National Motorist Association is an organization design to stand up for driver’s rights and to fight against government, police and court systems.  Don’t take my word for it, it says so right in their credo.

The article of where so much of this misinformation comes from stats “A key component of our position regarding safety legislation is that such legislation shall "do no harm." No person should be compelled by government, no matter how well intentioned, to take action that harms themselves or others.” 

Where on Earth has a seatbelt ever killed a person?  Seat belts don’t kill!  That’s like saying that the seat belt got up, came over and strangled you to death.  Seat belts restrain provide control and save lives.

It could be argued that a person was trapped by their seatbelt when the vehicle went into the water.  However, what is not being thought of is the fact, based off of research.  That when a person goes off a road and hits the water if they were not wearing their seatbelt they would have hit their head and been thrown around the vehicle.  The loss of conciseness would make it impossible to escape.  But the individuals that were seat belted were aware of what happen and were able to unbuckle their seat belts allowing themselves to escape.  If a person is hit from the side they would be tossed to the other side of the vehicle preventing them from keeping control of their vehicle.  This example can be applied to a burning vehicle or being rolled down a mountain side.  The fact of the matter is that if your body is not strapped to the seat your head is banging against the windshield or the roof where it can either break your neck or kill you.  But if buckled you may have a head laceration or head concussion but it will help prevent unconsciousness.

Again Erik argues “There is ample proof, that in certain accidents, people have survived only because a seat belt was not used -- injured, perhaps, but not dead. In 30% of fatal accidents, where a person is ejected from the vehicle, the person remaining in the vehicle is the fatality.”

 My question is where is your documentation?  What was the certain case?  Because what the CDC says is something a little different.  It says “Seat belts prevent drivers and passengers from being ejected during a crash. People not wearing a seat belt are 30 times more likely to be ejected from a vehicle during a crash. More than 3 out of 4 people who are ejected during a fatal crash die from their injuries.” 

Now let’s go back to the opening statement.  “The seatbelt law assumes that motorists are not aware of the benefits of seat belt use and are unable to make correct decisions regarding their own personal safety in vehicles”

Then why is it that in only 51% of fatal accidents, drivers were wearing a seat belt?  Had the other 49% been wearing one more than 4000 lives would have been saved in one year.  Research shows that during the day time hours 45% of passenger vehicle occupants killed in crashes were not wearing their seat belt and during the night time hours the percentage increased to 64%.  On the flip side of that is the medical.  According to the CDC in non-fatal crash injuries resulted in more than $50 billion in lifetime medical and work loss costs in 2012.  The question I have for you is who gets to pay for that?  Who gets to have their insurance premiums raised in order to help pay for those?  Many insurance companies are changing their policies based on the claims that they will not cover any medical expenses unless the driver was wearing a seat belt.  Now to think of the little girl or other patient in the emergency room that now gets over looked because of the driver or passenger that thought they had a right not to wear a seat belt but are not critical.  I want to help impress the understanding of not controlling yourself inside your vehicle.  If you hit something at 15 mph when your vehicle stops your body will continue moving at a rate of 15 mph.  But at a speed of 30 mph you will hit at four times harder than that of 15 mph.  To put it another way it’s the same as if you feel three stories.  Sometimes we cannot control the first collision which is the initial impact.  But the second collision is where we keep moving.  Many times this is more fatal.

Now this leads me back to my original statement.  If the government decided to not jump in and mandate a seat belt law we would be faced with turmoil and issues that we as a nation are trying to avoid.  Things like

Loss of lives increases each year because of the speed limit and quality of vehicles

Insurance costs rising and claims being denied

Medicare and Medicaid costs rising

Health care workers not being able to attend sick individuals

Higher taxes

If we knew all of this then why are we not wearing them?  Seat belt laws benefit us in so many ways we don’t realize them.