Effectiveness of Seat Belt Laws

¶ … 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

Aggregate Results

An overwhelming majority of respondents support laws that require both the driver and the front seat passenger to wear seat belts. Not surprisingly, those who are full time users of seat belts favored mandatory seat belt laws more than those who are part time or non-users of seat belts. Additionally, of those who gave the green light for seat belt laws in the front seat also favored seat belts laws for those in the back seat as well. More than half reported that they believed that fines are adequate punishment for those who did not wear seat belts while operating a motor vehicle, However, that number was slashed in half when participants were asked if they support laws making it possible for people who do not use their seat belts to loose points off their license. Those polled also favored laws that were somewhat lenient on first time offenders and more aggressive on second time and subsequent offenders. Respondents were then asked how large a fine would have to be in order to encourage future use of seat belts. More than half believed that a fine of at least 20 dollars would convert non-users and part time users into full time users. However one third of those polled were still doubtful that a fine would work even if the fine were $50.00. Furthermore, the survey also asked respondents about their attitude toward receiving a ticket for not wearing a seat belt. Of those who said they were totally in favor of seat belt laws, 84% said they if they received a ticket for not wearing a seat belt it would have been well deserved. When the question was asked to 42% of those who favored seat belt laws "some" the majority believed that the ticket would be unfair. Finally, people were polled about their knowledge of seat belt laws in their home states. All but 6% of people believed that their state has some sort of laws requiring the use of seat belts. When asked who they think that the law covered

More respondents believed that the law applied to drivers (93%), children in the front seat (86%), and adults in the front (85%). Seventy-six percent also thought their state laws covered children in the front seat. The survey also reported 42% assumed that it was mandatory for adults to wear seat belts in the back seat.

Race.

According to the survey African-Americans and Hispanics supported mandatory seat belt laws more than other groups. 95% of Hispanics and 94% of African Americas believe that mandatory seat belt laws are a good idea. African-Americans (67%) and Hispanics (75%) liked the idea of using fines for violations of the seat belt law. However, when the question was extended to the use of points off the license as a consequence for violating seat belt laws an overwhelming majority opposed such a law. Hispanics were the group with the highest number in favor of the law with 46% of respondents that were in agreement with the law. More Hispanics and African-Americans felt that if they were ticketed for not wearing their seat belt they would hold the belief that they deserved the ticket because they broke the law. The survey reveals that 70% of African-Americans hold this belief and 76% of Hispanics hold this belief as well.

Gender Differences.

There were also some fundamental differences in the way women and men responded the questions. The results of the survey showed that the majority of women support seat belt laws (91%), which is 11% higher than the support indicated by men. The majority of women also favor fines for those who are caught without wearing a seat belt, as two-thirds of the women polled hold this belief. More females than males also believed that if they were stopped for not wearing at seat belt and ticketed, that the ticket would be adequate and well deserved.

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