Legally wearing a seatbelt

[acptulsa]

I strongly suspect the real reason behind seat belt laws is to give police another possible source of probable cause. In other words, it is another possible excuse to pull you over and check you out. Think about it.

Certainly is an easy one to package. Who could object?

If not, it is an excuse to shield the government from lawsuits for mandating dangerous-as-hell air bags. If you were wearing your seat belt, it would have protected you from your air bag...

I prefer to stay safe while driving by driving a responsive vehicle and paying attention. Am I weird?

 

[sean43]

lol im glad to see this has raised a lot of debate. Im in full support of devolving it to states but in two minds whether a State should make it illegal to not wear your seatbelt.

There was a crash not so long ago in my city where a man flew out of the windscreen and mounted another car, causing the other car to swurve and crash causing serious injury. Aslong as their is this possibility, despite my libertarian principles I believe wearing a seatbelt in the front of a vehicle should be law.

 

[familydog]

Well, right now driving a motorized vehicle is a privledge granted to us by the states. Whether or not that should be the case is not relevant. Since the state controls whether I drive a car or not, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to regulate my privledges.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I think we should have a nationwide ban on seat belt laws

 

[PennCustom4RP]

Well, right now driving a motorized vehicle is a privledge granted to us by the states. Whether or not that should be the case is not relevant. Since the state controls whether I drive a car or not, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to regulate my privledges.

This sounds a lot like when a child asks Why?... and the parent responds...because I said so.

 

[Kade]

There is no federal law requiring seat belts.

There is a federal law that requires Car makers to provide seat belts on all vehicles.

This to me is acceptable middle of the road compromise.

Who has a problem with it?

The battle to get car makers to make seatbelts was long and bloody. Go tell it to Nader.

Some states have no seat belt laws, as far as I know New Hampshire at least is one of them.

 

[PennCustom4RP]

I strongly suspect the real reason behind seat belt laws is to give police another possible source of probable cause. In other words, it is another possible excuse to pull you over and check you out. Think about it.

No doubt on that one, always has been the case. In reality, they often just 'make up' a reason to pull you over. Profiling is probable cause in their eyes, and deny it later, hard to prove otherwise.

Am I weird?

Probably

 

[Kade]

Also, some states have them as Secondary Laws.

For instance, in my state, Rhode Island, I cannot be pulled over for a seatbelt violation. I can, however, be ticketed if I am not wearing one (or any passenger back or front) when I am pulled over for another violation.

All states differ. Some with ages, types of enforcement, and which seats.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

There is no federal law requiring seat belts.

There is a federal law that requires Car makers to provide seat belts on all vehicles.

This to me is acceptable middle of the road compromise.

Who has a problem with it?

The battle to get car makers to make seatbelts was long and bloody. Go tell it to Nader.

Some states have no seat belt laws, as far as I know New Hampshire at least is one of them.

I have a problem with it.

 

[acptulsa]

There is no federal law requiring seat belts.

There was no federal law mandating the 55 mph speed limit either--there was just federal bureaucracy and federal fuel tax. The Federal government takes our money and redistributes it to the states according to their ability and willingness to jump through Federal hoops. This goes right to the heart of what our movement is about.

I've used this example many times this season in describing why we're better off just letting the states do their thing--and often to good effect. Cut out the middleman! The 55 mph limit was never good for the Plains states at all.

I don't know or even think that the seat belt laws are part and parcel of the same thing, but insurance laws are. What a handy way to enable federal politicians to get bribes (oops, I meant contributions) for issues they have no Constitutional right to meddle in. By the way, that federal fuel tax didn't exist until the great Interstate System buildup (ostensibly for defense purposes) in the Fifties. It was implemented because some states lagged in building, and was never repealed.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I always find that there's either ignorance or self-interest behind every regulation or law.

 

[Kade]

There was no federal law mandating the 55 mph speed limit either--there was just federal bureaucracy and federal fuel tax. The Federal government takes our money and redistributes it to the states according to their ability and willingness to jump through Federal hoops. This goes right to the heart of what our movement is about.

I've used this example many times this season in describing why we're better off just letting the states do their thing--and often to good effect. Cut out the middleman! The 55 mph limit was never good for the Plains states at all.

I don't know or even think that the seat belt laws are part and parcel of the same thing, but insurance laws are. What a handy way to enable federal politicians to get bribes (oops, I meant contributions) for issues they have no Constitutional right to meddle in. By the way, that federal fuel tax didn't exist until the great Interstate System buildup (ostensibly for defense purposes) in the Fifties. It was implemented because some states lagged in building, and was never repealed.

Yes, the abuse of the commerce clause is very apparent. Drinking laws were also blackmailed into existence.

Bullying States is as bad as outright ignoring the Constitution.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Yes, the abuse of the commerce clause is very apparent. Drinking laws were also blackmailed into existence.

Bullying States is as bad as outright ignoring the Constitution.

The Constitution isn't a perfect document. We should respect it, but I think it's better that we use it to restrict our opponents.

Example: Libertarian President introduces a resolution to effectively END the Department of Homeland Security. Congress votes overwhelming no. Well, I think a good idea would be to use an Executive Order to shut it down. Just a scenario.

Example of restricting opponents: Uh, Real ID Act! It should be fought all the way to the Supreme Court imo

 

[Kade]

The Constitution isn't a perfect document. We should respect it, but I think it's better that we use it to restrict our opponents.

Example: Libertarian President introduces a resolution to effectively END the Department of Homeland Security. Congress votes overwhelming no. Well, I think a good idea would be to use an Executive Order to shut it down. Just a scenario.

If by "our opponents" you mean a government no longer under the control of the people, then I agree.

I don't like absolutes, and I don't particularly like Excecutive Orders. I don't see All congress overriding the people like that...

I don't like the Executive branches power already....

 

[OptionsTrader]

Personally, I think this is an individual responsibility and should not be law.

I agree.

There's a differnece between actions people "should" do and actions people should be "punished" for doing. Not wearing a seatbelt does not infringe on anyone else's life, liberty, or property. People should, however, wear seatbelts. Family, freinds, and communities should persuade and encourage seatbelt usage.

 

[BigFatRock]

Should be a state issue if an issue at all.

 

[porcupine]

It's not a federal issue, so I don't think he would want the federal government to do it. I think not having seat belt laws would fit in with his philosophy.

By the way, the only state in the country to not have a seat belt law is New Hampshire

 

[AutoDas]

There is no federal law requiring seat belts.

There is a federal law that requires Car makers to provide seat belts on all vehicles.

This to me is acceptable middle of the road compromise.

Who has a problem with it?

The battle to get car makers to make seatbelts was long and bloody. Go tell it to Nader.

Some states have no seat belt laws, as far as I know New Hampshire at least is one of them.

I think foreign car makers have implemented seat belts before domestic automakers.

 

[AutoDas]

lol im glad to see this has raised a lot of debate. Im in full support of devolving it to states but in two minds whether a State should make it illegal to not wear your seatbelt.

There was a crash not so long ago in my city where a man flew out of the windscreen and mounted another car, causing the other car to swurve and crash causing serious injury. Aslong as their is this possibility, despite my libertarian principles I believe wearing a seatbelt in the front of a vehicle should be law.

Which state do you live in?
Was this man drunk?
You're not a libertarian if you want the gov't to protect against risks.

 

[familydog]

Yes. Something like this is obviously a state issue. I don't see why a state can't make those laws.