Seat belt laws: balancing public safety and personal freedom

¶ … Seatbelt Laws:

Matter of Choice or Conscience?

Motor vehicle accidents are the number one killer of America's youth. Sadly, taking 5 seconds to buckle a seat belt could have prevented such senseless accidents and saved thousands of lives. While no one disagrees that seat belts do indeed save lives, statistics show that while some people do wear seat belts religiously others only wear it when it seems important (i.e. long trips) and some never buckle up. Wearing a seat belt may be considered a personal choice as some contend, however, advocates of seat belt laws point to the billions of dollars that non-users of seat belts cost the rest of the population. Survey results reveal that while people generally favor seat belt laws, they do not support laws that are too invasive of ones personal privacy. Requiring citizens to buckle up is an invasion of ones personal choice, depending on the law one or all passengers may be required to wear a seat belt. A violation of this rule may result in fines or even the driver loosing points off of his or her license. However, even though the choice to wear a seat belt is a personal one, if affects all of society. Not only is society paying the monetary costs of non-usage of seat belts, our citizens are paying with their lives.

The Effectiveness of Seatbelt Laws

Introduction

Motor vehicle accidents are the primary cause of death for people ages 6 to 27, and the main cause of death by injury for all ages, claiming about 41,000 lives per year. Advocates of mandatory seatbelt laws contend that the proper use of seatbelts can decrease the number of accident related deaths significantly. It is also estimated that motor vehicle injuries cost over 300 billion dollars in year in health expenses, business expenses, insurance costs, legal costs as well as societal costs. Seat belt safety has become such an important issue that in 1997 former President Bill Clinton issued an executive order requiring all Federal employees to wear seatbelts while on the job. The order even extends to free agents under contract by the Federal government.

Statement of Problem

Contrary to the mounds of evidence suggesting that the simple act of wearing a seatbelt can save your life, there are many who feel that laws requiring the usage of seatbelts are a violation of personal freedoms. Some opponents of mandatory seat belt laws believe that if the justification for seatbelt laws and so on is that they're for your own good, the same argument can be made about such things as dietary habits and exercise. They oppose such laws because a very important principle is at stake: That entirely personal choice is none of the government's business -- just as diet, exercise habits, and other personal choices that may somewhat increase (or decrease) exposure to risk/danger are likewise none of the government's business, either. The dispute over laws requiring seatbelt use is not on the basis of safety, almost everyone agrees that seatbelts can prevent injury and/or death. Rather, opponents point to the issue of personal choice. Arguably, how people perceive mandatory seatbelt laws also reflect ones attitude and value system that is shaped by their environment, knowledge and experience. Additionally, support for seat belt laws vary among age, race and sex. The extent or as some may call the degree of invasiveness of the law also is a factor in how well people accept the laws.

Purpose of Study

The focus of this study is to reveal how the acceptance of seat belt laws varies across racial, gender and age. Furthermore, this study also analyzes how people respond to mandatory seatbelts laws based on knowledge and experience. For example, is a person less likely to positively receive laws requiring seatbelt use if those they respect and admire (parents) did not wear them? Additionally, of those who favor seatbelt laws to what extent is their support. Do those who support front seat laws support back seat laws as well, and vice versa? How can such fluctuations in support for these laws be explained? This study will shed light on why we witness variations advocacy for seat belt legislation.

Hypothesis

What explains differences in support among people for seat belt laws when seatbelts obviously have life saving capacities? Varying attitudes for seat belt laws are based upon influence from the environment, perceptions and experiences. Segmentation among ethnic, gender and age are based on the above three factors to some extent as well.

Limitations

The primary limitation of this study is the number of observations also called the number of people surveyed. About four thousand adults were surveyed, adults being those 16 and older. This amount of people is hardly enough to make conclusions for the entire population. Another limitation of the study is that sampling error, bias and other statistical errors in measurement remain unaccounted for.

Definition of Terms

Below are a few terms that are used quite often throughout this paper. I will present the definition for these terms here so as to avoid confusion and redundancy.

Primary Seat belt Laws- Laws requiring that drivers of a motor vehicle be buckled up at all times. If a driver is not properly seat belted, they are at risk of receiving a ticket as if it were any other traffic violation. Currently, seventeen states and the Washington, D.C. has such laws in place.

Secondary Seat belt Laws- States that drivers can be ticketed for non-wearing of a seat belt if they have been stopped for another violation, such laws are active in 32 states. For example, if a man is stopped for speeding and is he is not wearing a seat belt he may receive a speeding ticket and a ticket for not wearing his seat belt. However, he cannot be stopped for not wearing his seatbelt only.

Part Time Users- people who believe that seat belts reduce the severity of injury in motor vehicle crashes but who believe that they are not at risk when driving on short, familiar, low speed trips.

Non-Users- Consist of only 5 to 10% of the population, but are the most difficult to convert to seat belt use. High-risk drivers are most typically non-users of seat belts. They are more likely than others to drive after drinking, to be involved in a serious crash, and are also the least likely to be responsible for the social and economic consequences of their behavior.

Full Time Users- Almost three-quarters of Americans say they are full-time users. However, of these, almost 10% acknowledge that they did not use their seat belts on at least one occasion during the past week and studies have shown that self-reported seat belt use is 12 to 25 percentage points higher than observed use.

Advocates for Seat belt Laws

The traditional argument for laws requiring the mandatory use of seat belts cities the life-saving aspect of wearing a seat belt. Advocates say that by taking 5 seconds to buckle-up, you may save the rest of your life. In addition to the effects of non-use of seat belts being qualified, the effects have been quantified as well. It is estimated that taxpayers shell out over 14.3 million dollars per year to cover injuries related to the non-use of seat belts while driving. Advocates also cite studies indicating that well meaning drivers who do buckle up actually pay for those drivers who opt not to use their seat belts. High health insurance, automobile insurance premiums are can be in part blamed on individuals who choose not to use restraints. These studies rebuke the statement by many who claim that their non-use of seatbelts does not affect any one but themselves.

Children's Safety.

Perhaps the most compelling argument for the mandatory wearing of seat belts is for the safety of the children. Such measures extend to older children as well, which is fairly new as earlier pressures concerned mainly the welfare of young children. In the state of Washington, Governor Gary Locke put into affect a law requiring booster seats be used for older children. The Law called Anton's Law, which is named for a young boy who was killed in a collision even though he was wearing the standard shoulder and lap belt. Joe Loera, Providence Hospital Intensive Care Nurse stated that "The injuries that we see in the emergency room when booster seats are not used include damage to the internal organs such as shearing -- which is a tearing -- of the liver, and ruptures to the abdominal arteries and aorta. Injuries to the neck might include a torn or crushed trachea, and damage to the jugular vein." It is these types of preventable injuries that advocates of seat belt laws believe can be reduced or even completely eliminated. The harsh reality is that collisions are the number one killer of children age 14 and under; the statistics are even less favorable when segmented into ethnic groups. A study conducted by Johns Hopkins University and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that "African-American male teenagers are nearly twice as likely to die in a motor vehicle crash as male teens that are white. The risk to black children ages five to 12 dying in a crash are almost three times as great as that of white children." The same study also revealed that Hispanic children aged 12 and under is twice as likely to die in a car crash than that of other children of the same age group.

Familial Influences.

Children whose parents do not use seat belts are at a great risk. Children risk loosing their parents in a fatal car crash since it has been proven that if seat belts are not used one has a higher chance of dying in a collision. Further, children whose parents do not buckle up themselves are less likely to use restraints for their children. Ergo, children who are not buckled up by their parents as a child are less likely to use seat belts when they reach driving age. The National Highway Traffic Safety Commission points out that some parents feel that the use of child safety seats are too inconvenient, out of their financial reach, or too difficult to install. Others are uninformed or misinformed about correct child safety seat use. Parent's ignorance and laziness has resulted in a 50% rate of children who are unrestrained dying in collisions.

Opposition to Mandatory Seat Belt Laws

What about those who feel mandatory seat belt laws is a violation of persona liberty? The common consensus among opponents of seat belt laws is that imposing seat belt laws is a fundamental violation of ones personal rights. Some people regard the decision to wear seatbelts as a personal health choice, thereby making it impossible for the government to impose personal health decisions on individuals, as it would be unconstitutional. Critics of such laws present a kind or morale hazard citing that those who wear seat belts may drive more aggressively in the belief that if there is a crash, they are likely to survive. Sam Peltzman author of The Effects of Automobile Safety Regulation (1975) presented in the Journal of Political Economy hypothesized that safer auto's would lead to more aggressive driving that would endanger those on the road. A London-based organization called "Choice in Personal Safety" upholds the belief that society sees him or her (a motorist) as a potential criminal who has to be regulated down to the last detail. No other section of society gets that treatment."

Racial Tensions.

Some also cite racial profiling as a reason against mandatory seat belt laws.

According to a representative of the American Civil Liberties Union in Ohio, "It's not unusual for citizens to complain to us about being stopped by police for nothing more serious than a broken taillight, only to find themselves the target of a barrage of intrusive and unnecessary questions about where they are going and whether they have any drugs or weapons in the cars." This is of particular concern to some minorities who believe that they are unfairly singled out by police, such a law would only increase the number of minorities being harassed by law enforcement agents. Unfortunately, the law tends not to be on the side of minorities. In 1996, The Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional for police to stop motorists for violation of any traffic law, even if the officer has an ulterior motive.

Gender Bias.

In 1999, the Supreme Court ruled that police officer may search a passenger's belongings simply because he suspects the driver has done something wrong. This makes all passengers subject to search if the driver is pulled over for not wearing his or her seat belt. Even though the ruling only includes passenger belongings and not the passenger's person, some people, especially women feel that the law is unfair since women usually carry purses, which is a belonging, therefore subject to search. On the other hand however, the law less affects men, who usually carry their personal property on them.

Opponents to seat belt laws do believe that seat belts are safer; there is no denying the fact. However, the contention remains that a person should wear a seat belt if he or she chooses, not because the law tells them to. It seems as if critics of mandatory seat belt laws do not want "Big Brother" watching over them. Dr. Linda Gorman a senior fellow at the Independence Institute study finds that no locality that has put seat belt laws into effect has shown evidence of a decreased incidence in accident related deaths. Dr. Gormans' study finds the corollary, when those who ordinarily did not wear seat belts were asked to do so; they drove faster, followed more closely, and braked later. Therefore, she concluded that when "reckless people are forced to wear seat belts, they 'compensate' for the increased safety by driving more recklessly."

Method

What accounts for the differences in opinion for seat belts laws? Admittedly, both sides agree that seat belts saves lives, what makes people want to refuse to wear seat belts just to retain an insignificant part of their personal freedom? For this paper, data was collected on how people feel about laws requiring the use of seat belts. Observations were randomly sampled and asked to answer a series of questions about seat belt use. All of those surveyed were adults at least 16 years of age, from various states with seat belt laws. The purpose of the survey was to determine how different groups of people fell about seat belt laws and to what extent they are accepted

Results

Age Differences

As expected, responses to questions varied dramatically among age groups. When posed with the question of laws requiring people in the front seats to wear seat belts the majority of those in age group 16-20 said that the law was favorable. However, when the question was applied to those in the back seat as well support for such a law decreased. Additionally, the support for fines for those who did not wear their seat belts was basically uniform across all age groups with support around 60%. However, the youngest age group exhibited the highest amount of support for points off an individual's license if caught with out wearing a seat belt.

Analysis

The results of the survey blatantly exhibit differing opinions among those of different genders, race and age. The survey also shows how people are influenced by those around them. While there is no concrete evidence to account for the differences it can be theorized that environmental and socio-economic factors have something to do with how people view such laws and what causes them to form their opinions. Generally, full-time users seem to be in favor of laws that require both front and back seat passengers to wear seat belts. As expected, those who do not use seat belts were the least in favor of laws requiring their use. Since the survey's questions only had set answers respondents did not have room to elaborate on their feelings. Based on results of the survey the response by African-Americans seemed contrary to the notion that some African-Americans are apprehensive of mandatory seat belt laws since African-Americans are one of the highest groups in favor of such laws. The notion that freedom of choice is the primary reason that Americans should not rally behind compulsory seat belt laws is exhibited in this group to some extent. While the common consensus gives favorable reviews for seat belt laws, we see support decreasing the more invasive of one's personal privacy the law becomes. The main problem with the survey is the fact that people were not knowledgeable about seat belt laws in their state. As, even some people whose state did not have a seat belt law (New Hampshire) believed that their state did have a law requiring seat belt use. The survey could have been structured so that each participant was presented with a brief overview of the laws in their state. If this were done, respondents would have had a true knowledge base upon which to draw their answers. So it can be concluded that a major flaw of this survey lies in the fact that respondents did not know enough about seat belt legislation to make educated decisions. On the other hand, the lack of knowledge on the part of the participants may signal a gap in knowledge on the part of Americans about seat belt laws in their stage. While almost every one knows about the life saving aspects of seat belts, few are aware of the laws on seat belts in their state.

Recommendations

While there are some flaws in the survey, there are some helpful conclusions that one can draw from the results in order to make valid recommendations. The number one goal of legislators and organizations who favor seat belt laws should be to educate the population on what exactly seat belt laws would entail, who would be affected and to what extent. It is not enough to say that wearing a seat belt saves lives, the majority of people agree on this fact. However, it should be the main goal to explain to the dynamics of seat belt laws so that residents can form their opinions based on accurate information.

It is true that seat belts preserve lives. It is true that wearing a seat belt is up to the discretion of the individual. It is true that people who do not wear seat belts that are involved in a collision cost society a significant amount money. Laws should be enacted so that they save lives while not being to invasive in ones personal privacy. For example, drivers and children should be required to wear their seat belts at all times. Additionally, the law should include children and teens up to age 16. America's citizens have always had to walk the fine line between their personal freedoms and public benefit. There are many laws that have been controversial because they curb a person's individual right. While seat belt laws are not the perfect answer, it is the best available answer. Freedom is very important in this country, after all freedom is one of the principles upon which this nation stands. However, there are too many people dying as a result of non-use of seat belts to sit back and remain idle. People are not buckling up enough, and sometimes they do not bother to buckle up their children. Inconvenience is not a reason to not use seat belts and other appropriate restraints. Seat belt laws are necessary to convert non-users and part time users into full time users. Each state must strike a balance that is agreeable on by the majority of residents so that the law is not impossible to enforce. Fines should also be given to those who are caught with out wearing their seat belt. Revenues for these fines should be used for programming and other such activities that would educate the public on why they should use seat belts and the proper use of seat belts and other safety devices such as child restraints. If the government is not part of the solution, then the government must be part of the problem. Legislation is required to save 41,000 lives a year. Lets not accept our citizens dying in vain, each state should adopt laws requiring the use of seat belts for the greater good of our society.