Do you have a right to not use a seat belt? (1 Viewer)

[IC FBGCav]

Big but dumb discussion from tonight. My answer is I wear it.

 

[Raider Nation]

Of course you have a right to not wear it. You also have a right to get ticketed for not wearing it.

 

[ghostguy123]

Obviously not since it is against the law.

If the question is SHOULD you have the right, I still say no. It cost a lot of taxpayer/insurance/hospital money to clean up injuries that are 50x worse than they would have been if you had your belt on.

And it's just stupid not to.

Weird discussion. Someone musta been fishin with ya

 

[AAABatteries]

Odd question - I guess yes but one thing that came to mind is if you hit someone while not wearing one and you get severly injured or die the other person has to live with something that could be preventable.

Having said that I would put it in the not wearing a helmet category - you can do it but you're an idiot if you do.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

You have a legal right not to wear a seat belt under most circumstances. In a very few circumstances, such as when you're driving or riding in a car somewhere in the United States, wearing a seatbelt is legally required.

If you're talking about some kind of Lockean natural right rather than a legal right, I think the answer depends on whose property you're driving on. The property owner typically gets to make the rules.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Obviously not since you it is against the law.

If the question is SHOULD you have the right, I still say no. It cost a lot of taxpayer/insurance/hospital money to clean up injuries that are 50x worse than they would have been if you had your belt on.

And it's just stupid not to.

Weird discussion. Someone musta been fishin with ya

This is the argument for seat belt laws. Can you provide me with a link to studies proving this? TIA.

 

[ghostguy123]

Obviously not since you it is against the law.

If the question is SHOULD you have the right, I still say no. It cost a lot of taxpayer/insurance/hospital money to clean up injuries that are 50x worse than they would have been if you had your belt on.

And it's just stupid not to.

Weird discussion. Someone musta been fishin with ya

This is the argument for seat belt laws. Can you provide me with a link to studies proving this? TIA.

if you want them, you go find them.

I definitely remember reading up on some studies about lower speed accident and how ridiculously MORE SAFE it ends being to have your seatbelt on.

If you want proof go run your car into a brick wall at 10 MPH without your seatbelt, then again with your seatbelt (or maybe do it with the seatbelt on first). Better than any studies you will find.

Now, if you are talking about the costs specifically, that is just common sense. Tons of people out there without medical insurance. Guess who foots those bills?? I will give you a hint. NOT the person getting the medical treatment.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Obviously not since you it is against the law.

If the question is SHOULD you have the right, I still say no. It cost a lot of taxpayer/insurance/hospital money to clean up injuries that are 50x worse than they would have been if you had your belt on.

And it's just stupid not to.

Weird discussion. Someone musta been fishin with ya

This is the argument for seat belt laws. Can you provide me with a link to studies proving this? TIA.

if you want them, you go find them.

I definitely remember reading up on some studies about lower speed accident and how ridiculously MORE SAFE it ends being to have your seatbelt on.

If you want proof go run your car into a brick wall at 10 MPH without your seatbelt, then again with your seatbelt (or maybe do it with the seatbelt on first). Better than any studies you will find.

Now, if you are talking about the costs specifically, that is just common sense. Tons of people out there without medical insurance. Guess who foots those bills?? I will give you a hint. NOT the person getting the medical treatment.

So the answer is NO you can't provide any EVIDENCE to back up your assertions. Thanks. I never said what people should or shouldn't do from a common sense perspective. But you're spouting B.S. without any proof. Feel free to message me when you have some proof and statistics to back up your assertions.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Now, if you are talking about the costs specifically, that is just common sense. Tons of people out there without medical insurance. Guess who foots those bills?? I will give you a hint. NOT the person getting the medical treatment.

What exactly is the definition of a "ton" of people without medical insurance?

 

[ghostguy123]

Now, if you are talking about the costs specifically, that is just common sense. Tons of people out there without medical insurance. Guess who foots those bills?? I will give you a hint. NOT the person getting the medical treatment.

What exactly is the definition of a "ton" of people without medical insurance?

Ur just the worst kind of internet message board D-bag

You are welcome to go find evidence to disprove what I said. After alll, you are the one asking.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

So the answer is NO you can't provide any EVIDENCE to back up your assertions. Thanks. I never said what people should or shouldn't do from a common sense perspective. But you're spouting B.S. without any proof. Feel free to message me when you have some proof and statistics to back up your assertions.

Why the hostility? People were having a calm discussion before you got here.

 

[ghostguy123]

And yeah, I guess I can't provide you with evidence. Well, I can, I just don't care to.

So because I am lazy it makes it all just so very untrue, right?? I mean, right?? Ghostguy doesnt want to go search for all the studies and numbers for 9 hours, so that must make it all untrue, just cause of this ghostfella.

Love it.

 

[ghostguy123]

So the answer is NO you can't provide any EVIDENCE to back up your assertions. Thanks. I never said what people should or shouldn't do from a common sense perspective. But you're spouting B.S. without any proof. Feel free to message me when you have some proof and statistics to back up your assertions.

Why the hostility? People were having a calm discussion before you got here.

Because he is clearly not that bright, nor able to figure out how to do things for himself

 

[ghostguy123]

Guys be careful, dont ever use "a lot" or "a ton" or "many" or " a great deal" anymore.

If you are gonna spout of some BS, you better come correct with EXACT numbers. I mean, EXACT. Or dont even post. Quit being worthless you guys.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

Feel free to message me when you have some proof and statistics to back up your assertions.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811140.PDF

 

[ghostguy123]

Back on topic, if you really do want "the right" to not wear a seatbelt, go by a car made in the 60s (not sure the exact year, so maybe this isnt true either)

 

[ghostguy123]

Feel free to message me when you have some proof and statistics to back up your assertions.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811140.PDF

You just made all this up on your own and made it look pretty didnt you? DIDNT YOU??!?!?!?!?!?

 

[captain_amazing]

Big but dumb discussion from tonight. My answer is I wear it.

LIVE FREE OR DIE!!!!!

 

[Reegus]

Feel free to message me when you have some proof and statistics to back up your assertions.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811140.PDF

Wrecked

 

[gianmarco]

No different than the "right" to drive without insurance or without a license or at whatever speed you choose. Driving on roads you didn't build and don't own is a privilege, not a right.

 

[KCitons]

I get the benefit of wearing a seat belt. What I don't get is the reasoning for a seat belt law? Of all the things to force people to do, why this? Why are we still allowing people to smoke, or eat the Giant size fries at McDonalds.

One state over, in Iowa, they have a seat belt law. But, no helmet law? WTF.

 

[Peyton Marino]

My answer is I wear it.

Sorry but this isn't really an answer to the question you asked.

 

[Tom Servo]

You have a legal right not to wear a seat belt under most circumstances. In a very few circumstances, such as when you're driving or riding in a car somewhere in the United States, wearing a seatbelt is legally required.

If you're talking about some kind of Lockean natural right rather than a legal right, I think the answer depends on whose property you're driving on. The property owner typically gets to make the rules.

 

[glock]

No different than the "right" to drive without insurance or without a license or at whatever speed you choose. Driving on roads you didn't build and don't own is a privilege, not a right.

(We do pay for them...)

 

[Koya]

In an ideal world of course you should be allowed to not wear a seat belt. So long as you don't expect the public to foot the bill for any injuries you may incur as a result.

 

[Riversco]

There are plenty of special laws when driving on public roads. You cannot drive in an oncoming traffic lane. You cannot make u-turns at certain places. You cannot pass at certain places. You must obey light signals. You must turn on your headlights when driving at night. You must turn on your blinkers if making a turn. You must give pedestrians the right of way. You must wear a seat belt.

The difference people will point out is that the seat belt is the only one that is personal, and that is what made people upset. All the other laws involve keeping others safe. This is just about yourself. A lot of people have a big problem when government begins to regulate actions that are personal in nature.

Helmet laws fall under the personal category as well. Now you've got two of them. So now you are going to start to alarm some people into thinking that more personal laws are coming and they might start to regulate the size of the soda you can buy, or if you are allowed to eat bacon.

 

[ghostguy123]

I get the benefit of wearing a seat belt. What I don't get is the reasoning for a seat belt law? Of all the things to force people to do, why this? Why are we still allowing people to smoke, or eat the Giant size fries at McDonalds.

One state over, in Iowa, they have a seat belt law. But, no helmet law? WTF.

I would be in favor of a nationwide crackdown on all foods being healthy.

However, i dont see that as having any relation to a seat belt law.

 

[KCitons]

I get the benefit of wearing a seat belt. What I don't get is the reasoning for a seat belt law? Of all the things to force people to do, why this? Why are we still allowing people to smoke, or eat the Giant size fries at McDonalds.

One state over, in Iowa, they have a seat belt law. But, no helmet law? WTF.

I would be in favor of a nationwide crackdown on all foods being healthy.

However, i dont see that as having any relation to a seat belt law.

How does forcing citizens to wear seat belts help everyone?

How does forcing citizens to be healthy help everyone?

In the end, it all comes down to money. Why is it still legal to smoke cigarettes in this country? Would you rather your kid smoke every day, or use their seat belt every day?

 

[ghostguy123]

I get the benefit of wearing a seat belt. What I don't get is the reasoning for a seat belt law? Of all the things to force people to do, why this? Why are we still allowing people to smoke, or eat the Giant size fries at McDonalds.

One state over, in Iowa, they have a seat belt law. But, no helmet law? WTF.

I would be in favor of a nationwide crackdown on all foods being healthy.However, i dont see that as having any relation to a seat belt law.

How does forcing citizens to wear seat belts help everyone?How does forcing citizens to be healthy help everyone?

In the end, it all comes down to money. Why is it still legal to smoke cigarettes in this country? Would you rather your kid smoke every day, or use their seat belt every day?

What exactly are you getting at?

I realize most laws and non laws dont make perfect sense.

That debate would never end.

 

[NutterButter]

I get the benefit of wearing a seat belt. What I don't get is the reasoning for a seat belt law? Of all the things to force people to do, why this? Why are we still allowing people to smoke, or eat the Giant size fries at McDonalds.

One state over, in Iowa, they have a seat belt law. But, no helmet law? WTF.

I would be in favor of a nationwide crackdown on all foods being healthy.

However, i dont see that as having any relation to a seat belt law.

How does forcing citizens to wear seat belts help everyone?

How does forcing citizens to be healthy help everyone?

In the end, it all comes down to money. Why is it still legal to smoke cigarettes in this country? Would you rather your kid smoke every day, or use their seat belt every day?

I imagine that statistically, seatbelts save lives. Since 99.9999% of the population doesn't have a problem with wearing one, its an easy win. Its only the fringe nuts that have a problem with it.

 

[Eulogys]

I believe NH is the only state that has no laws requiring adults to wear a seatbelt.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Evidence of the importance of wearing a seat belt while in a moving vehicle is not a recent discovery; many studies have been conducted to compare the hospital costs for victims of crashes that wore seat belts against those who did not wear them. In 2001, the National Safety Council revealed that the average inpatient costs for crash victims not wearing seat belts were 50% higher than victims who were wearing seat belts during the accident.

In 2002, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that the deaths and injuries that result from not wearing a seat belt cost an estimated $26 billion annually in medical care, lost productivity and other related costs.

Recently, the Minnesota Seat Belt Coalition has been conducting its own research to determine how the use of seat belts impacts the cost of health care. Using Minnesota vehicle crash records from 2002, the group has discovered that hospital costs for unrestrained crash victims were 94% higher than hospital costs for those using seat belts. They estimated that increasing seat belt usage in Minnesota to 94% from the current rate of 84% could reduce the cost of crash-related hospital care an average of $19 million annually over the next 10 years.

Let's assume that 85% of people in the US wear their seat belt. That's the first number I found. It's probably conservative since the NTSB study was from 2002, but conservative is good here.

$26B in costs over 50 million people (~15% of 350 million) means that non-seatbelt wearers are imposing costs of roughly $520 per non-wearer on the rest of society each year.

If you use the Minnesota numbers...

84% of Minnesotans wore their seatbelts (per the study). Increasing the rate to 94% would save $19m. MN's population in 2002 was almost exactly 5m. So 10% of that number is (conveniently) .5m people. And each non-user imposed a cost of $38 ($19m/.5m)

I suspect the NTSB's study was 'kitchen sink' and included all sorts of tangential costs that might be stretching things, while Minnesota's says they're only looking only at the marginal hospital costs from injuries sustained by non-wearers (which doesn't include other expenses).

So, wild ### guess... double MN's estimate and cut NTSB's in half...

Which would leave you with an estimate that non-seatbelt wearers impose an annual cost of somewhere between $76 and $260 on the rest of society.

 

[NutterButter]

Are seatbelts still relevant now that most cars are essentially a giant pillow during a crash?

 

[Cjw_55106]

It's like 1985 up in here.

 

[Tom Servo]

Are seatbelts still relevant now that most cars are essentially a giant pillow during a crash?

Air bags don't prevent you from being ejected in a rollover.

 

[NutterButter]

Are seatbelts still relevant now that most cars are essentially a giant pillow during a crash?

Air bags don't prevent you from being ejected in a rollover.

Side curtain bags wouldn't block up the windows?

 

[Tom Servo]

Are seatbelts still relevant now that most cars are essentially a giant pillow during a crash?

Air bags don't prevent you from being ejected in a rollover.

Side curtain bags wouldn't block up the windows?

Not all cars now on the road have side air bags. Besides, if you're rolling, you're being tossed around like a ragdoll. The airbags deflate in short order. Then, out you go.

 

[belljr]

Pa you have to wear a seat belt

But no helmet is required for a motorcycle

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Evidence of the importance of wearing a seat belt while in a moving vehicle is not a recent discovery; many studies have been conducted to compare the hospital costs for victims of crashes that wore seat belts against those who did not wear them. In 2001, the National Safety Council revealed that the average inpatient costs for crash victims not wearing seat belts were 50% higher than victims who were wearing seat belts during the accident.

In 2002, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that the deaths and injuries that result from not wearing a seat belt cost an estimated $26 billion annually in medical care, lost productivity and other related costs.

Recently, the Minnesota Seat Belt Coalition has been conducting its own research to determine how the use of seat belts impacts the cost of health care. Using Minnesota vehicle crash records from 2002, the group has discovered that hospital costs for unrestrained crash victims were 94% higher than hospital costs for those using seat belts. They estimated that increasing seat belt usage in Minnesota to 94% from the current rate of 84% could reduce the cost of crash-related hospital care an average of $19 million annually over the next 10 years.

Let's assume that 85% of people in the US wear their seat belt. That's the first number I found. It's probably conservative since the NTSB study was from 2002, but conservative is good here.

$26B in costs over 50 million people (~15% of 350 million) means that non-seatbelt wearers are imposing costs of roughly $520 per non-wearer on the rest of society each year.

If you use the Minnesota numbers...

84% of Minnesotans wore their seatbelts (per the study). Increasing the rate to 94% would save $19m. MN's population in 2002 was almost exactly 5m. So 10% of that number is (conveniently) .5m people. And each non-user imposed a cost of $38 ($19m/.5m)

I suspect the NTSB's study was 'kitchen sink' and included all sorts of tangential costs that might be stretching things, while Minnesota's says they're only looking only at the marginal hospital costs from injuries sustained by non-wearers (which doesn't include other expenses).

So, wild ### guess... double MN's estimate and cut NTSB's in half...

Which would leave you with an estimate that non-seatbelt wearers impose an annual cost of somewhere between $76 and $260 on the rest of society.

People do all sorts of things that impose a "cost on the rest of society." That a terrible justification for regulating stuff. In the case of wearing seatbelts, the overwhelming majority of the cost is borne by the driver, not the rest of society.

 

[NutterButter]

Are seatbelts still relevant now that most cars are essentially a giant pillow during a crash?

Air bags don't prevent you from being ejected in a rollover.

Side curtain bags wouldn't block up the windows?

Not all cars now on the road have side air bags. Besides, if you're rolling, you're being tossed around like a ragdoll. The airbags deflate in short order. Then, out you go.

Well gos darn it, when is the government going to make those mandatory? I see your point about them deflating though.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Pa you have to wear a seat belt

But no helmet is required for a motorcycle

21 states/DC require all riders to wear a helmet.

27 require young riders to wear helmets.

3 don't require helmets (Illinois, Iowa, New Hampshire).

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Evidence of the importance of wearing a seat belt while in a moving vehicle is not a recent discovery; many studies have been conducted to compare the hospital costs for victims of crashes that wore seat belts against those who did not wear them. In 2001, the National Safety Council revealed that the average inpatient costs for crash victims not wearing seat belts were 50% higher than victims who were wearing seat belts during the accident.

In 2002, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that the deaths and injuries that result from not wearing a seat belt cost an estimated $26 billion annually in medical care, lost productivity and other related costs.

Recently, the Minnesota Seat Belt Coalition has been conducting its own research to determine how the use of seat belts impacts the cost of health care. Using Minnesota vehicle crash records from 2002, the group has discovered that hospital costs for unrestrained crash victims were 94% higher than hospital costs for those using seat belts. They estimated that increasing seat belt usage in Minnesota to 94% from the current rate of 84% could reduce the cost of crash-related hospital care an average of $19 million annually over the next 10 years.

Let's assume that 85% of people in the US wear their seat belt. That's the first number I found. It's probably conservative since the NTSB study was from 2002, but conservative is good here.

$26B in costs over 50 million people (~15% of 350 million) means that non-seatbelt wearers are imposing costs of roughly $520 per non-wearer on the rest of society each year.

If you use the Minnesota numbers...

84% of Minnesotans wore their seatbelts (per the study). Increasing the rate to 94% would save $19m. MN's population in 2002 was almost exactly 5m. So 10% of that number is (conveniently) .5m people. And each non-user imposed a cost of $38 ($19m/.5m)

I suspect the NTSB's study was 'kitchen sink' and included all sorts of tangential costs that might be stretching things, while Minnesota's says they're only looking only at the marginal hospital costs from injuries sustained by non-wearers (which doesn't include other expenses).

So, wild ### guess... double MN's estimate and cut NTSB's in half...

Which would leave you with an estimate that non-seatbelt wearers impose an annual cost of somewhere between $76 and $260 on the rest of society.

People do all sorts of things that impose a "cost on the rest of society." That a terrible justification for regulating stuff. In the case of wearing seatbelts, the overwhelming majority of the cost is borne by the driver, not the rest of society.

Apparently we've gone from 1985 to 1785.

 

[Niles Standish]

Obviously not since you it is against the law.

If the question is SHOULD you have the right, I still say no. It cost a lot of taxpayer/insurance/hospital money to clean up injuries that are 50x worse than they would have been if you had your belt on.

And it's just stupid not to.

Weird discussion. Someone musta been fishin with ya

This is the argument for seat belt laws. Can you provide me with a link to studies proving this? TIA.

if you want them, you go find them.

I definitely remember reading up on some studies about lower speed accident and how ridiculously MORE SAFE it ends being to have your seatbelt on.

If you want proof go run your car into a brick wall at 10 MPH without your seatbelt, then again with your seatbelt (or maybe do it with the seatbelt on first). Better than any studies you will find.

Now, if you are talking about the costs specifically, that is just common sense. Tons of people out there without medical insurance. Guess who foots those bills?? I will give you a hint. NOT the person getting the medical treatment.

So the answer is NO you can't provide any EVIDENCE to back up your assertions. Thanks. I never said what people should or shouldn't do from a common sense perspective. But you're spouting B.S. without any proof. Feel free to message me when you have some proof and statistics to back up your assertions.

Are you really disagreeing with someone who says seatbelts make drivers safer???

You have to be trolling, and I guess you got me. But, there have been so many studies that it's as close to fact as we can get.

 

[Tom Servo]

Evidence of the importance of wearing a seat belt while in a moving vehicle is not a recent discovery; many studies have been conducted to compare the hospital costs for victims of crashes that wore seat belts against those who did not wear them. In 2001, the National Safety Council revealed that the average inpatient costs for crash victims not wearing seat belts were 50% higher than victims who were wearing seat belts during the accident.

In 2002, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that the deaths and injuries that result from not wearing a seat belt cost an estimated $26 billion annually in medical care, lost productivity and other related costs.

Recently, the Minnesota Seat Belt Coalition has been conducting its own research to determine how the use of seat belts impacts the cost of health care. Using Minnesota vehicle crash records from 2002, the group has discovered that hospital costs for unrestrained crash victims were 94% higher than hospital costs for those using seat belts. They estimated that increasing seat belt usage in Minnesota to 94% from the current rate of 84% could reduce the cost of crash-related hospital care an average of $19 million annually over the next 10 years.

Let's assume that 85% of people in the US wear their seat belt. That's the first number I found. It's probably conservative since the NTSB study was from 2002, but conservative is good here.

$26B in costs over 50 million people (~15% of 350 million) means that non-seatbelt wearers are imposing costs of roughly $520 per non-wearer on the rest of society each year.

If you use the Minnesota numbers...

84% of Minnesotans wore their seatbelts (per the study). Increasing the rate to 94% would save $19m. MN's population in 2002 was almost exactly 5m. So 10% of that number is (conveniently) .5m people. And each non-user imposed a cost of $38 ($19m/.5m)

I suspect the NTSB's study was 'kitchen sink' and included all sorts of tangential costs that might be stretching things, while Minnesota's says they're only looking only at the marginal hospital costs from injuries sustained by non-wearers (which doesn't include other expenses).

So, wild ### guess... double MN's estimate and cut NTSB's in half...

Which would leave you with an estimate that non-seatbelt wearers impose an annual cost of somewhere between $76 and $260 on the rest of society.

People do all sorts of things that impose a "cost on the rest of society." That a terrible justification for regulating stuff. In the case of wearing seatbelts, the overwhelming majority of the cost is borne by the driver, not the rest of society.

There are costs in terms of lost production, extra health care costs and lost wages. They are the result of unbuckled person's accident. If they were belted in, those costs would be less.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

People do all sorts of things that impose a "cost on the rest of society." That a terrible justification for regulating stuff. In the case of wearing seatbelts, the overwhelming majority of the cost is borne by the driver, not the rest of society.

Apparently we've gone from 1985 to 1785.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that the government should be able to regulate/outlaw anything that has any effect on the rest of society, no matter how small? Because that's the extreme claim that I'm disputing.

If you can demonstrate that seatbelt-less drivers don't bear much of the cost of their own actions -- to the point that their incentives are misaligned -- then we can talk. I can't imagine you think that's the case though.

 

[Tom Servo]

If you can demonstrate that seatbelt-less drivers don't bear much of the cost of their own actions -- to the point that their incentives are misaligned -- then we can talk. I can't imagine you think that's the case though.

Now that's a discussion I can get into.

 

[NutterButter]

Evidence of the importance of wearing a seat belt while in a moving vehicle is not a recent discovery; many studies have been conducted to compare the hospital costs for victims of crashes that wore seat belts against those who did not wear them. In 2001, the National Safety Council revealed that the average inpatient costs for crash victims not wearing seat belts were 50% higher than victims who were wearing seat belts during the accident.

In 2002, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that the deaths and injuries that result from not wearing a seat belt cost an estimated $26 billion annually in medical care, lost productivity and other related costs.

Recently, the Minnesota Seat Belt Coalition has been conducting its own research to determine how the use of seat belts impacts the cost of health care. Using Minnesota vehicle crash records from 2002, the group has discovered that hospital costs for unrestrained crash victims were 94% higher than hospital costs for those using seat belts. They estimated that increasing seat belt usage in Minnesota to 94% from the current rate of 84% could reduce the cost of crash-related hospital care an average of $19 million annually over the next 10 years.

Let's assume that 85% of people in the US wear their seat belt. That's the first number I found. It's probably conservative since the NTSB study was from 2002, but conservative is good here.

$26B in costs over 50 million people (~15% of 350 million) means that non-seatbelt wearers are imposing costs of roughly $520 per non-wearer on the rest of society each year.

If you use the Minnesota numbers...

84% of Minnesotans wore their seatbelts (per the study). Increasing the rate to 94% would save $19m. MN's population in 2002 was almost exactly 5m. So 10% of that number is (conveniently) .5m people. And each non-user imposed a cost of $38 ($19m/.5m)

I suspect the NTSB's study was 'kitchen sink' and included all sorts of tangential costs that might be stretching things, while Minnesota's says they're only looking only at the marginal hospital costs from injuries sustained by non-wearers (which doesn't include other expenses).

So, wild ### guess... double MN's estimate and cut NTSB's in half...

Which would leave you with an estimate that non-seatbelt wearers impose an annual cost of somewhere between $76 and $260 on the rest of society.

People do all sorts of things that impose a "cost on the rest of society." That a terrible justification for regulating stuff. In the case of wearing seatbelts, the overwhelming majority of the cost is borne by the driver, not the rest of society.

There are costs in terms of lost production, extra health care costs and lost wages. They are the result of unbuckled person's accident. If they were belted in, those costs would be less.

Agreed. Any additional cost that results from not wearing a seatbelt is going to get spread out throughout the respective industry. Say you die b/c you weren't wearing a seatbelt, your family collects your life insurance and now that additional cost has to spread out across all its policy holders.

 

[glumpy]

Big but dumb discussion from tonight. My answer is I wear it.

It's anybody's own business, but I don't ever want my family or friends wondering if I just might have survived it I had been wearing my seatbelt--so I wear it.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Evidence of the importance of wearing a seat belt while in a moving vehicle is not a recent discovery; many studies have been conducted to compare the hospital costs for victims of crashes that wore seat belts against those who did not wear them. In 2001, the National Safety Council revealed that the average inpatient costs for crash victims not wearing seat belts were 50% higher than victims who were wearing seat belts during the accident.

In 2002, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that the deaths and injuries that result from not wearing a seat belt cost an estimated $26 billion annually in medical care, lost productivity and other related costs.

Recently, the Minnesota Seat Belt Coalition has been conducting its own research to determine how the use of seat belts impacts the cost of health care. Using Minnesota vehicle crash records from 2002, the group has discovered that hospital costs for unrestrained crash victims were 94% higher than hospital costs for those using seat belts. They estimated that increasing seat belt usage in Minnesota to 94% from the current rate of 84% could reduce the cost of crash-related hospital care an average of $19 million annually over the next 10 years.

Let's assume that 85% of people in the US wear their seat belt. That's the first number I found. It's probably conservative since the NTSB study was from 2002, but conservative is good here.

$26B in costs over 50 million people (~15% of 350 million) means that non-seatbelt wearers are imposing costs of roughly $520 per non-wearer on the rest of society each year.

If you use the Minnesota numbers...

84% of Minnesotans wore their seatbelts (per the study). Increasing the rate to 94% would save $19m. MN's population in 2002 was almost exactly 5m. So 10% of that number is (conveniently) .5m people. And each non-user imposed a cost of $38 ($19m/.5m)

I suspect the NTSB's study was 'kitchen sink' and included all sorts of tangential costs that might be stretching things, while Minnesota's says they're only looking only at the marginal hospital costs from injuries sustained by non-wearers (which doesn't include other expenses).

So, wild ### guess... double MN's estimate and cut NTSB's in half...

Which would leave you with an estimate that non-seatbelt wearers impose an annual cost of somewhere between $76 and $260 on the rest of society.

People do all sorts of things that impose a "cost on the rest of society." That a terrible justification for regulating stuff. In the case of wearing seatbelts, the overwhelming majority of the cost is borne by the driver, not the rest of society.

There are costs in terms of lost production, extra health care costs and lost wages. They are the result of unbuckled person's accident. If they were belted in, those costs would be less.

Of course. And almost all of those costs are borne by the driver himself. If I die or am badly injured in an auto accident, the costs to me are astronomically more than any cost that anybody else has to pay. For example, I wear my seatbelt 100% of the time, not because I care about some hospital or insurance company getting stuck with my medical bills, but out of a selfish concern about not winding up dead or paralyzed. This is not an area that warrants government involvement because there's no misalignment of incentives.

This is different that regulating something like pollution. If a firm spews air pollution into the atmosphere, that imposes a cost on society but the firm itself bears practically none of that cost. In that case, a firm has an incentive to pollute as if pollution was costless, when in fact it isn't. So even libertarian people like me tend to be okay with pollution regulations.

Wearing a seatbelt is completely different. If you don't wear a seatbelt, 99.99% of the cost of that action falls on you. That residual 0.01% shouldn't be enough to drive policy unless you want a government that regulates literally every decision you have ever made or will ever make.

 

[Niles Standish]

People do all sorts of things that impose a "cost on the rest of society." That a terrible justification for regulating stuff. In the case of wearing seatbelts, the overwhelming majority of the cost is borne by the driver, not the rest of society.

Apparently we've gone from 1985 to 1785.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that the government should be able to regulate/outlaw anything that has any effect on the rest of society, no matter how small? Because that's the extreme claim that I'm disputing.

If you can demonstrate that seatbelt-less drivers don't bear much of the cost of their own actions -- to the point that their incentives are misaligned -- then we can talk. I can't imagine you think that's the case though.

People don't usually follow their best interests overall. They follow their best immediate interests.