The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Belt Ways

8.8.06 @ 12:01AM

CLICKED OFF
Re: Eric Peters's Seat Belt Lashes:

I think that Eric Peters missed an obvious point in his article, "Seat Belt Lashes." Like him, I agree that rapists and murderers are more serious criminals than those who don't wear seat belts. The reason that policeman should be out there scrambling to write tickets to the "lesser criminals" is that it funds a police force that can more easily capture those horrible criminals when it has more money.

Concerning the issue of seat belts, it is incontrovertibly safer to wear a seat belt than to not wear one. His argument that a seat belt could hurt someone is like saying a lifeguard could hurt someone; it is not reason to justify not watching the beach. Only a fool neglects to wear their seatbelt.
-- Adam Jones

I always enjoy reading Eric Peters's work. I would much more prefer that the state do more about roadway safety. A lot can be done from an engineering standpoint by straightening roads, sight distance, making curves and grades flatter and just painting edges and the middle of the road. These safety measures do not require intrusive compliance except paying a gas tax. In 2004, 44.5 percent of the people killed were wearing seat belts.

Getting one and a half persons to wear a seatbelt for their next 100 million miles will still result in a fatality. Making roads safer can be a measure that benefits thousands per road corridor per day even if they are drunk, impaired by lack of sleep or talking on a cell phone.
-- Danny L. Newton
Cookeville, Tennessee

Nice rant.

Kind of low hanging fruit though, wasn't it? "Freedom, unjust laws, nanny state, unfair taxes." You seem to have hit all the hot buttons.

But having read your article, I really only have one question for you:

If someone is injured in an automobile accident, while not wearing a seatbelt, should we (the public) use our emergency response units to provide medical assistance to that person?

Based on your article, I'd have to guess that you would say that we should NOT aid that person. After all, following your logic, the freedom not to wear a seatbelt would seem to imply that a person should take responsibility for his/her actions. So if someone is hurt because a seatbelt is not worn, then they deserve no help from us.

Putting aside the question of how emergency response teams would enforce this matter (do they request confirmation of seatbelt usage before answering a call?), is this really how we want to act as a society?

Even if you want to ignore the fact that we are still essentially a Christian society (at least as far as American attitudes towards charity and good deeds are concerned), is it really a smart thing to do? Let's ignore morality for a moment and look at the economics.

In the article you throw around some numbers in money that is being spent on "Click-it-or-ticket" laws. $2.6 million in California, is quoted. Big sum, no doubt. But how much money does the state of California spend on seatbelt-less accident victims? Police, paramedic, fire department, emergency room personnel. All of that effort adds up to a lot of money. Something quite far in excess of the $2.6 million, I would suspect, year after year after year. Now let's take that number and multiply it across the country. Again, not having any data, I can only suspect the probable enormity of the amount. Shouldn't we be worried about those costs?

How much do you and I spend to assist those freedom loving motorists who can't take the time to use safety products that are standard in every automobile?

Economically, it's a no-brainer. I'm willing to bet that if an economist is pressed on the issue, he'd have to admit that, if we are not going to cut these people off from aid and assistance, then it would be a good thing to take steps to control our costs.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Foreign Policy, Education, Bill Clinton, Economics, Sports, Religion, Islam, Abortion, Hollywood, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Africa, Communism, Fascism, Oil