Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Craig234
Like so much, the founding fathers largely left this to the judgement of 'the people'.
I interpret "the people" in this context as being meant for things such as non-profit organizations, groups of citizens assembling to help solve problems. Not "the people" handing the problem solving over to the federal government.
What I meant was the people, in terms of voting their opinion of what the laws should be.
For example, I think it was right to require seat belts in cars and to require people to wear them.
This is a state issue, not a federal law, and rightfully so. But the intention for these kinds of laws is not to "save lives" but to give police a reason to pull people over.
We disagree on the motives for the law.
As for the rest, I'm not too interested in the federal vs state on this, but it's the federal government who required seat belts in all cars.
It's the states who require their use (or not, in New Hapnshire), though the federal government has sometimes pressured states.
link
It's a lesson to be learned about the 'free market rhetoric' to note that the 'free market' was largely opposed to mandatory seat belts in cars. It took the government 'leading the way' for people to get used to the idea that it made sense. But no, we don't want the government doing that a lot. In that case, many thousands of lives a year are saved with no 'real' downside.
This is just wrong. How does this have anything to do with the "free market?"
The free market could put seat belts in all cars, or it could not. You can argue all day how it 'should', but the bottom line is, it resisted doing so after they were invented.
So, it's an example where there was a need for the government to play a role, if this was going to be done, and a lesson in the 'ideology' of the free market vs. facts.
Regardless, people have a real, true, incentive for wearing their seatbelt. Their lives. And that really is all the incentive they need.
You provide another, similar lesson. You provide *ideology* about how people *should* behave- which is wrong factually.
It's precisely because seat belt usage was too low that the government, after not increasing it enough with 'educational' efforts, decided to make it the law (New York starting a trend).
Thinking that if the law didn't require doing so, that people would suddenly stop wearing their seatbelt is just stupid. And the law still doesn't guarantee people wear it, obviously, because there are still people who break that law. To think that abiding by the law is a greater incentive than preventing one's own death is just dumb.
You really need to learn how to argue. It happens to be the fact that the law *does* make a lot of people who would not wear a seat belt for safety, wear one to avoid a fine.
Why? One big reason, I'll speculate, is that people are not rational about the risks, and prefer the 'convenience, comfort, or habit' of not wearing it, regardles of statistics.
I've known people personally who argue that:
- There's some chance a seat belt could trap you in a car and prevent escape, so they won't wear it
- It's not comfortable, so they won't wear it
- They can prevent injury in a crash by pushing hard on the steering wheel (in fact, this is so common, a driver safety class address it with the physics that trying to do this in a 25MPH collision is like trying to brace a two-story fall by putting your arms in front of you when you hit the ground).
There are more, including one from when I was a young drive which embarrassment prevents me from repeating here.
To quote one web site:
For those who never wear a seat belt, the most commonly cited reason (65 percent) is that seat belts are uncomfortable. Other reasons people gave for not wearing their seat belts include the following:
* Being in a hurry and not having time to buckle up
* Light traffic on the roads when respondent drives
* Not wanting to get clothing wrinkled
* Resentment at being told what to do
* Knowing someone who died in a crash while wearing a seat belt
* Resentment at government interference in personal behavior
* Never having gotten used to seat belts
* The belief that with air bags, seat belts are redundant
As for the law as a motivator, a
study was done specifically on that issue, by comparing New Hampshire with its neighbor.
New Hampshire (NH) is the only state with no adult seat belt law. The lack of a restraint law may stem from a reluctance to infringe on individual freedoms. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center (DHMC) is located in NH, only 4 miles from the Vermont (VT) border. As a result, residents of both states are well represented in the Emergency Department (ED) population. This provided an opportunity to investigate the relationship between opinions, behaviors and the presence or absence of a restraint law. Adult DHMC ED patients were surveyed with respect to seat belt use in states with and without restraint laws, risk taking behaviors, and feelings of infringement on personal freedom. The results demonstrated no difference in restraint use between NH and VT residents while traveling in a state with a seat belt law. However, significantly fewer NH residents reported restraint use when traveling in a state without a seat belt law. These dissimilarities were not explained by differences in risk taking behaviors or by differences in feelings of infringement on freedom. This suggests that actual seat belt use reflects adherence to the law rather than concerns over personal freedom. This may inspire a reassessment of the acceptability of an adult restraint law in New Hampshire.