Aggressive seatbelt campaign

[Serivas]

Here in this city thats situated along the border of Illinois and Iowa I've noticed a huge spike, almost simultaneously of seatbelt commercials. Most of the time they warn you about driving without a seatbelt "even for a short distance" or "on the rural roads" or would get you pulled over. Some are even followed by their slogan "Click it or ticket." and feature policemen in uniform in an office saying "we're serious about seatbelt law." which is kinda strange, because the approach they took a few months back that lasted a week or so was saying that they were saving lives. Being on the border, I get BOTH states advertisements. Iowa seems to be a little more aggressive however. It's so frequent on the local channels that there is hardly a commercial break without one, sometimes with ads from both states after the other.

I my self have had experience with their seatbelt laws at a police checkpoint. They were so generous, they decided to tack on a few imaginary fees too.

Whats with this? Why are they pushing so badly? It's apparently not about safety, and if it was about money they'd be a little more quiet about it. Why all the sudden? Is this happening elsewhere?

 

[Mr. Premise]

Yes, it is happening all over the U.S.. It IS about safety and also about money, I think, because of health insurance and also the uninsured, if people get badly injured from not wearing seatbelts or by not wearing helmets on motorcycles, it is a cost to the economy.

But of course they don't care about YOUR safety, but whether or not it will cost them.

 

[rs]

Yes, it is happening all over the U.S.. It IS about safety and also about money, I think, because of health insurance and also the uninsured, if people get badly injured from not wearing seatbelts or by not wearing helmets on motorcycles, it is a cost to the economy.

But of course they don't care about YOUR safety, but whether or not it will cost them.

I disagree. Seat belt use is a highly effective way to prevent or reduce injury during an automobile accident. Just recently the governor of New Jersey nearly died from an accident where if he had been wearing his seat belt, he most likely would have walked away from.

If the only constraint was cost, there would be a law on the books that said something to the effect: "If you are in a car or motorcycle accident and you were not wearing your seat belt or helmet, you will be 100% personally responsible for your medical bills".

I am not a great big fan of the PTB, but in this case I am more likely to believe that the real story is "Look, a seat belt is is a zero cost way to mitigate injury, so if you are going to be *stupid* enough to not wear one, we are going to harass you into compliance."

Where I live there is a high population of motorcycles. Every time I see a rider without a helmet (which is often), I think of Darwin. If you ride in my car, you wear your seat belt, otherwise you walk or ride in somebody else's car.

Not every choice by the PTB to "reduce free will" is necessarily evil. Water companies are forced to test the water so they do not give you polluted water. You have to prove that you have a certain level of vision to be given a driver's license.

And yes, it really is true that sometimes people really do need to be protected from themselves.

 

[anart]

Well, I personally know two people who were horribly harmed by the seatbelt they were wearing - and one who was probably saved by it, so I don't think it's a cut and dried issue. One friend lost her leg at the hip due to a seatbelt that basically cut her in half (at 13 years of age) - another whose seat belt would not release, so she suffered severe burns being trapped in the car after a crash. In both cases, others in the car who were not wearing seatbelts escaped the accident with one broken bone, or no injuries - so, as always, there are exceptions.

I'm not fond of the laws about it, personally, but that's just my take on it. I understand the laws for children, but it seems intrusive and yet another example of the state controlling its citizens to me - so, guess I won't be riding with you anytime soon, rs. ;)

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

If the only constraint was cost, there would be a law on the books that said something to the effect: "If you are in a car or motorcycle accident and you were not wearing your seat belt or helmet, you will be 100% personally responsible for your medical bills".

I don't think it's cost, I think there are 2 reasons for seatbelt and cigarette laws. One, get people to believe that the governments care about their safety and well-being, and to get them used to laws that tell them what to do with their own bodies, simply because they're told to. With cigarettes there's also the dumbing down/reduce psychic abilities factor, and perhaps make money for cigarette companies etc. Kinda like the war on drugs, or the war on terrorism for that matter.

I am not a great big fan of the PTB, but in this case I am more likely to believe that the real story is "Look, a seat belt is is a zero cost way to mitigate injury, so if you are going to be *stupid* enough to not wear one, we are going to harass you into compliance."

I don't think this is the real story, it makes no sense in light of ponerology. Let me modify your quote and include the unsaid assumption that I know isn't true:
"Look, a seat belt is is a zero cost way to mitigate injury, so if you are going to be *stupid* enough to not wear one, (and because we care about your safety), we are going to harass you into compliance."

I agree, it's a zero-cost way to mitigate injury, but since when did the PTB care about mitigation of injury when they themselves are responsible for most injuries, suffering, and death on the planet, far more than any such laws could ever mitigate? But since seat belts do save lives, it is not a horribly unreasonable request to make given its clear benefit for the people (actually, maybe the benefit is not so clear, but that's even beside the point). They have to start with things that seem plausible, then move on to more and more unreasonable and "strange" demands that start to have less and less any real usefulness for the people, but by that time the people are used to it so what's another little law?

If you ride in my car, you wear your seat belt, otherwise you walk or ride in somebody else's car.

But that's your car, your rule. Like your house, the rules you set in your house or this forum and the rules the owners of this forum set - but the government doesn't own your body, your car, or your house. If the government told you what time to drink coffee, at what temperature, imposed a curfew, and said when to shut the windows, you'd not be thrilled. I think this is no different, except in this case the law is "sensible/reasonable" only because it does actually help to save your life, but it doesn't change the fact that it is YOUR life - and you're an adult, not a 3 yr old, why can't you be allowed to decide what sort of risks you can take? They could outlaw bungee jumping, sky diving, and sports for the same reasons if they wanted to. That too would help with lots of injuries and save lives. And seat-belt rules aren't really zero-cost, they do cost your freedom not to wear a seatbelt in your own car.

Water companies are forced to test the water so they do not give you polluted water.

Yeah cuz they harm others.

You have to prove that you have a certain level of vision to be given a driver's license.

Yeah cuz you'll harm others if you don't.

And yes, it really is true that sometimes people really do need to be protected from themselves.

Why? They are adults, they are not clinically retarded or little kids. What is your definition of evil if not to limit free will just because you decide what's best for someone and what risks they should be allowed to take?

 

[rs]

And yes, it really is true that sometimes people really do need to be protected from themselves.

Why? They are adults, they are not clinically retarded or little kids. What is your definition of evil if not to limit free will just because you decide what's best for someone and what risks they should be allowed to take?

Except it is not a case of "no harm, no foul" here. If somebody gets into an accident, they do not assume all of the risk. The only case I am aware of where the person harmed in an accident assumed total risk and accountability is the aforementioned governor of New Jersey who announced that he was not going to allow his insurance to pay for the medical care he received. This is a big step because it will cost him several $100,000 for this.

So, the bottom line is that someone harmed by failure to wear a seat belt sticks *me* with the bill. And I have an opinion on this... As far as your modified quote, frankly I don't care if people are moronic enough to take this kind of risk. I care if they make me pay for their stupidity/arrogance/whatever.

Well, I personally know two people who were horribly harmed by the seatbelt they were wearing

Yeah, I know, I know, the old "well the seat belt {did/didn't fill in the blank} which caused more damage" etc. etc. The problem with this is that the statistics clearly do not back this up. For every person injured "by" a seat belt (which is hard to prove because you are never sure of the alternative) there are also 1,000 other people who were either saved or whose injuries were reduced. The statistics supporting seat belt use are overwhelming.

[Yeah, obviously this is a hot button for me.]

 

[anart]

This is a big step because it will cost him several $100,000 for this.

Is it? Do you really think the Governor of New Jersey can't spare $100,000 or three or four times that?

Clearly it is a hot button issue for you, and statistics are - well - are statistics, and you're way smart enough to know that they can lead anywhere you want them to. Statistics or no, I'm one person with personal experience of the 'bad side' so it's not, "I know, I know" - would you like my friends' phone numbers to get a first hand account of how 'not perfect' seat belts are?

That's really beside the point - government simply should not be telling it's citizens what to do in or on their own property - at least from my perspective (and I'm NOT talking about the extremes of hurting other people) - I know that's not a popular perspective, and in this county and this world that there are more than enough idiots out there who make it a not popular perspective - but, for me - it is very, very hard to see the police pulling people over for no seat belts as a good thing. I'm sure you think I'm 'stupid' and there is, no doubt, an argument for that in this case, but I just wanted to mention that there are other viewpoints that may not be steeped in stupidity - they might be steeped in suspicion and distrust of the police and of the state - once you've been pulled over, a search of your car is automatic - at least where I live (excluding the trunk, which they have to ask to do). So - I know that in most circumstances seatbelts improve the chances of surviving a crash - but isn't that what the automatic seatbelts in newer cars are for - or that annoying buzzer that sounds until you connect the seat belt?

 

[Lan8r]

Regardless of the benifits to ones personal safety, the seat belt law crosses the line and is a violation of the rights of an adult. It is one thing to enforce a seat belt law with regards to children, and of course to enforce a law for auto makers to install them. But to enforce a law for an adult to wear one is without a doubt a violation of a persons rights.

I agree with Anart in that there are exceptions to the "seat belts save lives". As far as the statistics are concerned, they can be and often are manipulated. Either way, seat belt or no seat belt, they are hard to prove because, as RS pointed out, you can not always be sure of the alternative.

As far as insurance companies are concerned, the only risk they assume is to their greedy, over inflated, profit margin. The majority of drivers, by way of insurance premiums, have 'pre-paid possible future risk' and very often at the expense of quality of life for themselves and their family.
The seat belt law will benefit Insurance companies (not the drivers) financially = money = greed.

The seat belt law is not about safety, as SAO pointed out, If the government told you what time to drink coffee, at what temperature, imposed a curfew, and said when to shut the windows, you'd not be thrilled. I think this is no different, except in this case the law is "sensible/reasonable" only because it does actually help to save your life, but it doesn't change the fact that it is YOUR life - and you're an adult, not a 3 yr old, why can't you be allowed to decide what sort of risks you can take? They could outlaw bungee jumping, sky diving, and sports for the same reasons if they wanted to. That too would help with lots of injuries and save lives. And seat-belt rules aren't really zero-cost, they do cost your freedom not to wear a seatbelt in your own car. The only thing I would say different is that it "May" help save your life.

If they were at all concerned about safety, they would not allow people to renew their drivers lics online, without the 'eye test' and without a driving test. As a matter of fact, the issuing of a DL is not about driving safety at all, it is about contol of information. Your address, your picture, your ss#, all in one data base. You are required to notify DMV of address change with in 10 days. So they can always know where to find you, and confirm your ID with the push of a button.

Another benefit to the PTB with the seat belt law, as well as many other traffic laws, is to give Law Enforcement probable cause to pull you over. If they can find no fault with the vehicle, or the driver, they now have PC to pull you over for the Passenger not wearing a seat belt. This is a gross violation of citizen's rights.

The benefit of the seat belt law to the PTB = psychological manipulation and control.

Let me also say that I am not against the use of seat belts, only the enforcement of another law designed to benefit the Insurance companies and the PTB at the cost of our individual rights and free will.

 

[Johnno]

Here in this city thats situated along the border of Illinois and Iowa I've noticed a huge spike, almost simultaneously of seatbelt commercials. Most of the time they warn you about driving without a seatbelt "even for a short distance" or "on the rural roads" or would get you pulled over. Some are even followed by their slogan "Click it or ticket." and feature policemen in uniform in an office saying "we're serious about seatbelt law." which is kinda strange, because the approach they took a few months back that lasted a week or so was saying that they were saving lives. Being on the border, I get BOTH states advertisements. Iowa seems to be a little more aggressive however. It's so frequent on the local channels that there is hardly a commercial break without one, sometimes with ads from both states after the other.

I my self have had experience with their seatbelt laws at a police checkpoint. They were so generous, they decided to tack on a few imaginary fees too.

Whats with this? Why are they pushing so badly? It's apparently not about safety, and if it was about money they'd be a little more quiet about it. Why all the sudden? Is this happening elsewhere?

Just Googled it and we in Australia tend to get the seatbelt meme drummed into us fairly hard.

Our state road and traffic authority has this to say about "educating drivers" ie changing their belief system.

Research indicates that seat belt usage is a conscious decision and is a function of the perceived degree of risk that is involved in a given situation. Non-wearing is an occasional event and is triggered by the following perceptions:

* If I don't wear a seat belt I am only hurting myself;
* Short trips are safe and I am very unlikely to have an accident;
* Being in the backseat is safer than the front;
* I'm a good driver;
* Country roads are quiet;
* I know the roads well;
* I am unlikely to get caught; and
* Police don't enforce seat belt wearing to any great extent.

The role of advertising is therefore to challenge these beliefs.

The RTA has responded to the problem by producing an occupant restraint public education campaign with the key objectives of:

* Increasing awareness of the safety benefits of seat belts in perceived 'low risk' driving situations;
* Challenging non-wearer's perception that they are only hurting themselves;
* Reminding drivers that seat belt penalties are significant and that police are enforcing these;
* Encouraging seat belt wearing to be an automatic behaviour; and
* Supporting and encouraging correct restraint use by the community at large.

The media used for this campaign include television, cinema, radio, outdoor posters and brochures. There is also a seat belt campaign specifically targeting drivers and operators of heavy vehicles.

Nevertheless, only a small portion of fatalities are the result of not wearing seat belts. The biggest killer is cancer, followed by heart disease, strokes and then lung complaints. And there's no way to fine anyone (yet!) for the unsafe or risky behaviousrs that lead to these deaths.

So myself, I see it as a way of revenue raising and "creating criminals". As Anarchasis the Greek said

Written laws are like spiders' webs, and will, like them, only entangle and hold the poor and weak, while the rich and powerful will easily break through them.

There's another observation I came across from Ayn Rand

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Unjust laws have to be fought ideologically; they cannot be fought or corrected by means of mere disobedience and futile martyrdom

Personally I wear a seatbelt, coming to a sudden stop with 20G of force may require some assistance :)

 

[vinny]

I agree, it's a zero-cost way to mitigate injury, but since when did the PTB care about mitigation of injury when they themselves are responsible for most injuries, suffering, and death on the planet

exactly. same goes for the anti-smoking campaign. It's for our own good?!? Since WHEN did the genocidal maniacs in power give the slightest damn about the wellbeing of anyone except themselves?

For them to even use that kind of obviously hollow 'throw-away' line is in itself an admission that there must be another agenda that they're not prepared to discuss.

 

[Keit]

If the government told you what time to drink coffee, at what temperature, imposed a curfew, and said when to shut the windows, you'd not be thrilled. I think this is no different, except in this case the law is "sensible/reasonable" only because it does actually help to save your life, but it doesn't change the fact that it is YOUR life - and you're an adult, not a 3 yr old, why can't you be allowed to decide what sort of risks you can take? They could outlaw bungee jumping, sky diving, and sports for the same reasons if they wanted to. That too would help with lots of injuries and save lives. And seat-belt rules aren't really zero-cost, they do cost your freedom not to wear a seatbelt in your own car.

Well, I always put a seatbelt while in the car, mostly because many of Israeli drivers see traffic laws as guidelines only. But I agree that everyone is entitled to do whatever they like while in their own car. By imposing such laws government says to people "You are not able to be responsible for your own decisions. You are not able to control yourself, and you need us to guide you and tell you what to do. Otherwise, you will get yourself killed rather quickly, poor sheepy. We are here to help you to survive, don't you see?"

But apparently there are exceptions to the rule. For example, taxi drivers. It is not only allowed for them not to ware seatbelt, it is actually recommended, because they have to be able to get out of the car very quickly when they find themselves attacked from behind by robbers.
But as anart mentioned, other drivers also can find them self trapped inside the car because of the seatbelt.

 

[Al Today]

I feel strongly about this issue, WEARING SEATBELTS SHOULD BE A PERSONAL CHOICE. Here is a true story from my experience, When driving years ago, I had 60 feet of highway guard rail plow through the driver side front door, exiting out the passenger side front window. All I know is I DID NOT have a seat belt on. Nope, no, I was NOT buckled up! Upon initial impact, momentum threw me directly backward, head first, towards the back seat. As the guard rail came through the door, it clipped me in the knees. Lost a leg in the accident. IF I HAD BEEN WEARING A SEAT BELT, UPON IMPACT I WOULD HAVE BEEN HELD STATIONARY AND THE GUARD RAIL WOULD HAVE CUT MY BODY IN HALF, AT THE TORSO, INTO TWO(2) PIECES. A seat belt may help on a front or rear collision, but when being hit on the side of the car, I would prefer to be thrown outta the car, hopefully onto a field of tall soft grass, thank you very much...

 

[Youngfox]

Control.

I have had a run of bad luck over the years as a passenger in other people’s vehicles.
I have been in sudden stops, rear ender, T-bone sideswipe, head on and 2 roll-overs.

I was not wearing a seatbelt for one of the sudden stops and ended up putting a nice full windshield spider crack across the front of that vehicle. I suffered no permanent damage but had we been moving faster I would have exited the vehicle through said windshield to a no doubt ugly end.

In one of the roll-overs I had no seatbelt and was tossed around the back of the van like an angry dog’s chew toy.
Again, aside from some scrapes and bruises I walked away from it.

In the second roll-over I was belted and wound up hanging upside down in a ditch with water rushing in. I unclipped and tumbled out, climbing through a fence and into a farmer’s field that contained a very angry breeding bull. He ran at me and I had to run, back through the fence, through the ditch out onto the road, ( but I digress).

Seat belts are your friend and have saved my life more than once.
If I must choose I would rather lose a leg than my head.

As for the patrols here in Ontario, Canada, which are many and often set up as unavoidable funnels at the ends of on ramps, they have one main purpose, IMHO.

Establish normalcy. Condition “consumers" (formerly known as “citizens" ) to accept regular scrutiny at checkpoints, (Your Papers, please!).
While seatbelts are the stated reason for these checkpoints it also allows the PTB to monitor who is going where and in what condition.

Every checkpoint I’ve been through seems to involve more personal questions than just “are you wearing your seatbelt?" .
Things like - “Where are you coming from and have you had anything to drink tonight?"
If you are a little “pink" in the eyes they will engage you with arbitrary questions to determine if you have been smoking weed allowing them the chance to employ new tech that detects residuals of marijuana use.
It is all about controlling the masses and conditioning us to accept it without question.
It is the same rationale for all of the profiteering wars and Draconian “homeland" surveillance and detainment laws that our western nations are engaged in.
It is all perpetrated under the benevolent guise of our “safety" .

While our “leaders" barf the word freedom like it is a stomach virus, measures such as checkpoints and spy cameras are increasing exponentially every year.

It is all about control.

 

[Al Today]

Seat belts are your friend and have saved my life more than once.
If I must choose I would rather lose a leg than my head.

That is your choice, correct? An unbuckled seat belt is now a good reason to pull a driver off the road with probable cause. At least the driver will get a dang ticket. To tell the truth, I do wear a seat belt nowadays. Not for safety, but so the officer has less probable cause.

WEARING SEATBELTS SHOULD BE A PERSONAL CHOICE

And I stand by this statement. There are many, many Pros/Fors & Cons/Against this issue, who knows about the middle ‘gray’ arguments, and there seems to be no end to the debate. All around, little by little, piece-by-piece, freedoms being taken away from the masses. There probably are large sums of money involved with this Click-It or Ticket (seat belt) campaign,

and I say, right spot on the mark…

Control.

And I cannot help but be humored….

If you are a little “pink" in the eyes they will engage you with arbitrary questions […]

I would love to tell the officer that his eyes looked a little glazed, and ask him/her if he’s been eating doughnuts again…

 

[Miss Isness]

This is an interesting thread. Seatbelt laws began being enforced in Italy about 4 years ago. They actually had checkpoints where everyone who passed by without a seatbelt was pulled over and given a ticket. Furthermore, a new driver's license point system had been into place, and the penalty for not wearing a seatbelt is the loss of 5 points.

Drivers start with 20 points, and if they get down to 6 they are required to go to a course at a private driving school at their own expense with a minimum cost of €150.00 + pay a fine (not as much as in Crete, with a fine of €350.00 from what I've read). If you're stupid (edit - or stubborn) enough to get caught without a seatbelt 3 times in a period of two years your license will be suspended even if you don't have any other infractions.

I have always been against seatbelt laws. Sometimes they save lives, sometimes they are the cause of death or more serious injuries. I don't know the ratio, who does, but what difference does it make? If we realize for one second that we are actually equipped with a 6th sense, it becomes clear that laws like this are training us not to use it. Of course, this isn't the least bit surprising considering it's our only hope of escaping the matrix.