Loading ...
SAFETY TRENDS
Conventional wisdom holds that the bad economy will hurt safety. But conventional wisdom isn’t always right.
Exhibit A: The bad economy has forced more than a dozen states to adopt stricter seat belt laws.
Explanation: In 2005, the U.S. Congress adopted a transportation bill offering federal funds to states that enact what are called primary enforcement seat belt enforcement laws, laws that empower the police officers to pull over motorists for not wearing seat belts (as opposed to stopping them for another violation like speeding and citing them additionally for not wearing a seat belt.)
Studies show that primary seat belt laws save lives because they force motorists to buckle up. For example, a 2008 report from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) shows that seat belt use in primary law states is 13% higher than in other states (88% v. 75%).
But there’s a catch: To get the federal money, states must adopt a primary seat belt law and get it signed by the governor by June 30; and they must start issuing citations by Sept. 30.
27 states have adopted primary seat belt laws. And now shrinking tax revenues caused by the recession are changing minds in the other 23. Many of the holdout states need money and reckon that if they have to save some lives to get federal dollars, so be it. Holdout states contemplating primary seat belt laws include:
- Arkansas;
- Florida;
- Georgia;
- Kansas;
- Massachusetts;
- Minnesota;
- Montana;
- Nebraska;
- Nevada;
- New Hampshire;
- North Dakota;
- Pennsylvania;
- Rhode Island;
- South Dakota;
- Virginia; and
- Wyoming.
For more information on the NHTSA primary seat belt law program, see, for example, http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/TSF/HS810743/810743.html
Email This Post
Print This Post
Top
Story Comments (%)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
There is a substantial difference between imposing regulations on employers requiring them to address hazards which expose others (employees) to danger where they are required to work, and infringing on the liberty of individuals, even for a 'good cause'.
Mandating that individuals wear seat belts (or wear motorcycle helmets, or 'secure' firearms in the home, etc.) will indeed prevent deaths and injury. However, the exact same logic says that to prevent more deaths and injuries, we should ban automobiles altogether; ban motorcycles; ban alcohol (already tried that one); ban firearms; make overeating a crime; and outlaw sports.
According to the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, there are 120,000 accidental deaths per year caused by Physicians (that's ACCIDENTAL deaths). By this logic, we could prevent over a hundred thousand accidental deaths each year by banning doctors...
Maybe we should reconsider allowing government to attach strings like these to the allocation of taxpayer dollars, and leave state laws in the hands of states, where it belongs constitutionally. Just a thought.
"I'd rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too little." Thomas Jefferson, 1791