Seatbelt Legislation Should Crash
Posted by: Bruce Reilly
in State House
on March 14, 2010 
If Rhode Island drivers weren’t annoyed enough by a stiff uniform demanding you “Click it or Ticket,” new legislation, sponsored by Rep. Doug Gablinske, would make the failure to wear a seatbelt a “primary offense.” This means the police can pull over anyone they suspect of not wearing their seatbelt. For your own safety, of course.
I say “suspect,” because it is quite difficult to see if someone is buckled or not except with a clear line of sight on a sunny day. If the law were to pass, how many traffic judges will be looking at cell phone photos and flip video explaining how it is impossible for the officer to have seen through the smoked window at 7pm?
I read this in the newspaper while standing next to a Latino man. After merely reading the headline, he said, “that will be serious racial profiling.” Ah but wait, me Amigo: read further!
Fortunately, my Black and Brown brothers and sisters have nothing to fear. This will protect them!
But wait a minute, con permiso. Where do they get their data? I did see that “Accidents” is the leading cause of death... and motor vehicle accidents are the leading form of accident... but did they exclude pedestrians, bicyclists, and buckled up passengers? I challenge them to show Unbuckled Motorists as the leading cause of death.
In fact, studies show a few other things as well.
-
Belted drivers compensate by riskier driving.
-
Deaths to pedestrians and bicyclists rise in areas where seatbelts are mandatory.
The Comprehensive Racial Profiling Prevention Act of 2010, if passed, would serve as a slight counterbalance to people of color being routinely “saved” via traffic stops. I wonder if Representative Gablinske, sponsor of the Seat Belt solution, will be a passionate advocate to monitor traffic stop data?
A Providence Journal survey on the seatbelt issue shows 70% of the voters are against it. A quick glance at the comments (or any story comments) show their readership to be of the conservative nature. Stories on immigration inspire blatantly racist comments. So you can bet that this vote was based on stopping the Police State advances... not in protecting people of color.
Rep. McCauley thinks it would be a good idea to install a string of Automatic Speed Traps. He might have noticed that the Traffic Light cameras in Providence have been losing money and causing accidents. Or maybe not.
March 24th is the hearing day for driving. All of the above bills, and H7117 will be in the House Judiciary Committee. The latter bill punishes “inattentive driving.” I can only imagine what happened on the day Rep. Kilmartin submitted the bill, and got Reps. McNamara and Giannini to sign on. Believe me, I would love to throw $50 tickets at people left and right who have no clue what they are doing. However, this bill is totally subjective, utterly lacking in specifics, and must fail as a matter of law.
Combined with the seatbelt law, it is clear that some legislators feel it is safe for officers driving vehicles to be paying attention to what is going on inside other moving vehicles. Now THAT is “inattentive driving!”
Tagged in: Seatbelts , racial profiling , Peter Kilmartin , John McCauley , Joanne Giannini , Doug Gablinske , Criminal Justice
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Comments (14)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/hide comments
written by grumpy old man, March 14, 2010
This bill is another example of government being a nanny. We already have enough "nanny laws." Stupidity is just about the last law of natural selection available today. People who drive without seat belts and kill themselves in auto accidents all deserve Darwin Awards. Government is not obligated to protect them.
-
- +0
-
-
written by jmcdaid, March 14, 2010
While I share the concerns about unacceptable civil liberties risks of this law and am no fan of government intrusion, I feel obligated to point out that unbelted drivers do not just harm themselves. According to testimony by the NTSB last year in New Hampshire, the average inpatient cost for unbelted vehicle occupants involved in accidents was 55% higher than their belted counterparts. The cost of such care is passed along to the rest of us in higher insurance premiums and the economic costs of lost productivity, among others. See http://bit.ly/bcDVxR The government may not be obliged to protect them from themselves, but what about the impact of their decision on the rest of us?
-
- +0
-
-
written by DeusEx, March 14, 2010
A horrible and anti-individual liberty piece of legislation. Pure nanny-state nonsense. The ramifications of this will be huge, and not in a good way. Police will be able to pull you over on a whim just because they perceive you as not having on your seatbelt, use it as an excuse to question you and/or search you, and give out tickets to generate more revenue for the state. Yes, progressives, this could easily have racial profiling effects as well. As if all the artificially low speed limits and overzealous speed enforcement haven't done enough to erode public respect for the role of law enforcement already.
Mr. Gablinske should be ashamed of himself, and he should be removed from office for supporting such police-state government intrusion against the constituents he is supposed to serve.
Meanwhile libertarian New Hampshire has NO SEATBELT LAWS AT ALL. Their roads must be one giant red-stained mess of brain matter, right? No, their vehicle fatalities are extremely low and have been falling steadily for the past few years.
Mr. Gablinske should be ashamed of himself, and he should be removed from office for supporting such police-state government intrusion against the constituents he is supposed to serve.
Meanwhile libertarian New Hampshire has NO SEATBELT LAWS AT ALL. Their roads must be one giant red-stained mess of brain matter, right? No, their vehicle fatalities are extremely low and have been falling steadily for the past few years.
-
- +0
-
-
written by DeusEx, March 14, 2010
Bizarre way of looking at it, jmcdaid. In the case of privatized insurance, rising costs and risk distributions are for the company to decide and for customers to either accept or reject. There could easily be something put into the contract to deter driving without a seatbelt without the government getting involved. Where the government has involved itself in covering medical care, our concern should be with that practice itself, not with the people having it forced upon them. Don't you see the dangerous slippery slope you are headed down? First government nationalizes an area of the private sector. Then the government forces everyone to change their behavior based upon cost analyses for that area, then the government starts harassing and punishing people for noncompliance. Where does it end? Would you agree with an anti-hamburger bill to reduce the cost of health care? Would that be a valid function of government?
The civil liberty ramifications and externalities of this bill are not worth the monetary savings, which I question in the first place since the cost of care for a dead person is zero and people who don't wear seatbelts are far more likely to die. For another example of this principle, look at the low health care costs for smokers over their lifetimes (they tend to drop dead pretty quickly and reliably).
The civil liberty ramifications and externalities of this bill are not worth the monetary savings, which I question in the first place since the cost of care for a dead person is zero and people who don't wear seatbelts are far more likely to die. For another example of this principle, look at the low health care costs for smokers over their lifetimes (they tend to drop dead pretty quickly and reliably).
-
- +0
-
-
written by grumpy old man, March 14, 2010
They are equally stupid. Same law of natural selection applies to them.
-
- +0
-
-
written by jmcdaid, March 14, 2010
DeusEx, I'm using hospitalization only as a proxy for the total cost of injury and impairment that comes with an unbelted accident. I don't think there's any question that unbelted occupants have poorer accident outcomes, and that gets factored into the rates all insurance companies set. I can't reject insurance; it is a state requirement.
Your suggestion about insurance companies modifying rates is interesting -- perhaps you would be more comfortable with a GEICO seatbelt monitor in your car, maybe with a friendly spokesgecko tsk-tsking in your ear as your premiums automatically increased? No, I don't trust the free market to solve this.
And the total cost to society for a dead person is not zero; rather, it is the hard cost of their lost productivity (including foregone tax revenue) and the unquantifiable impact of their social contributions. I make the admittedly bizarre economic argument only because it is more objective. Talking about the pain of people unnecessarily injured and the suffering of families whose loved ones died needlessly is more compelling to me. YMMV.
Look, I'm not saying this is a good bill. I share your concerns about the civil liberties implications. I'm not arguing for it. It does not seem to meet the test of accomplishing the objective in the least intrusive way. But I don't take as a given that the government has no legitimate interest in enforcing the use of appropriate safety devices. The roads are not the private sector; they are the commons, and government has an established role in ensuring safety there.
Your suggestion about insurance companies modifying rates is interesting -- perhaps you would be more comfortable with a GEICO seatbelt monitor in your car, maybe with a friendly spokesgecko tsk-tsking in your ear as your premiums automatically increased? No, I don't trust the free market to solve this.
And the total cost to society for a dead person is not zero; rather, it is the hard cost of their lost productivity (including foregone tax revenue) and the unquantifiable impact of their social contributions. I make the admittedly bizarre economic argument only because it is more objective. Talking about the pain of people unnecessarily injured and the suffering of families whose loved ones died needlessly is more compelling to me. YMMV.
Look, I'm not saying this is a good bill. I share your concerns about the civil liberties implications. I'm not arguing for it. It does not seem to meet the test of accomplishing the objective in the least intrusive way. But I don't take as a given that the government has no legitimate interest in enforcing the use of appropriate safety devices. The roads are not the private sector; they are the commons, and government has an established role in ensuring safety there.
-
- +0
-
-
written by DeusEx, March 14, 2010
"I can't reject insurance; it is a state requirement."
In New Hampshire you can. Another good argument for less nanny-statism.
"Your suggestion about insurance companies modifying rates is interesting -- perhaps you would be more comfortable with a GEICO seatbelt monitor in your car, maybe with a friendly spokesgecko tsk-tsking in your ear as your premiums automatically increased? No, I don't trust the free market to solve this."
How come people always jump to the most absurd conclusions about privatization of public laws or services rather than the most efficient and user-friendly ones for which the private market would offer a competitive advantage? Somebody earlier on this blog was lampooning the possibility of private fire/ambulance services having credit card readers on the vehicles. As if any business would institute such a thing instead of just using a preregistration model like other forms of private insurance or the private ambulances we already have today. It is business that incentivizes customer service, government does not, such people have it backwards. The reason we don't see this in the health insurance industry is because that industry is the most heavily regulated industry in the country at the moment, creating an artificial oligopoly that can increase prices and decrease service with impunity. Competition through deregulation would drive that cost down and improve service.
"But I don't take as a given that the government has no legitimate interest in enforcing the use of appropriate safety devices."
Of course they have a legitimate interest in ensuring the safety of individuals from other individuals who put them at risk. They have no legitimate interest protecting people "from themselves." I don't need the government to tell me what is best for me, I can do that much better than they can. That is where the line should be drawn.
In New Hampshire you can. Another good argument for less nanny-statism.
"Your suggestion about insurance companies modifying rates is interesting -- perhaps you would be more comfortable with a GEICO seatbelt monitor in your car, maybe with a friendly spokesgecko tsk-tsking in your ear as your premiums automatically increased? No, I don't trust the free market to solve this."
How come people always jump to the most absurd conclusions about privatization of public laws or services rather than the most efficient and user-friendly ones for which the private market would offer a competitive advantage? Somebody earlier on this blog was lampooning the possibility of private fire/ambulance services having credit card readers on the vehicles. As if any business would institute such a thing instead of just using a preregistration model like other forms of private insurance or the private ambulances we already have today. It is business that incentivizes customer service, government does not, such people have it backwards. The reason we don't see this in the health insurance industry is because that industry is the most heavily regulated industry in the country at the moment, creating an artificial oligopoly that can increase prices and decrease service with impunity. Competition through deregulation would drive that cost down and improve service.
"But I don't take as a given that the government has no legitimate interest in enforcing the use of appropriate safety devices."
Of course they have a legitimate interest in ensuring the safety of individuals from other individuals who put them at risk. They have no legitimate interest protecting people "from themselves." I don't need the government to tell me what is best for me, I can do that much better than they can. That is where the line should be drawn.
-
- +0
-
-
written by jmcdaid, March 14, 2010
I'm comfortable drawing the line there as well. I'm just not convinced that your decision to drive unbelted presents zero risk to me. And I suspect we will have to agree to differ on whether that risk is of sufficient magnitude to justify a government interest.
-
- +0
-
-
written by DeusEx, March 14, 2010
That's all very reasonable, but I fail to see how somebody's hypothetical decision not to wear a seatbelt really endangers you. You're concerned that somebody is going to fly through their windshield, then through your own windshield and hit you? The chances of that happening are negligible. Except for the few isolated freak cases out there, it really only effects the seatbelt user, and there are plenty of cases in which wearing a seatbelt could actually cost somebody their life, although obviously it's a safer bet overall. The government has a better case for banning Christmas Trees than they have for requiring seatbelts based upon risk to individuals other than the user.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Barry, March 14, 2010
A "nanny" is a perfectly respectable occupation, yet any time the government tries to protect ordinary people it seems the usual suspects decry a "nanny state" as though that (perhaps sexist) derision sheds any light. The issue is whether or not the regulation is justified, not the derisive label.
In the case of increased penalties when distracted drivers violate another traffic law (the Kilmartin bill) I feel it can help deter bad driving practices, the same with red light cameras that almost all studies I've seen indicate makes the streets safer, especially for bicyclists and pedestrians, which includes me. There is no constitutional right to run red lights, I see no civil liberty issue there.
As for seat-belt use, I believe the data-based insurance industry is convinced they reduce injury severity and fatalities, and I have no reason not to believe that. Seat-belts: I used to ignore them until I rented a car in a foreign country that had a mandatory seat-belt law, and as a guest, I did want to follow their laws. So I got in the habit of using them, so am glad that such laws existed. That is the reality of how such laws can have an effect.
Since minorities get the same safety benefit from seat-belt use, I see no civil rights issue here.
In the case of increased penalties when distracted drivers violate another traffic law (the Kilmartin bill) I feel it can help deter bad driving practices, the same with red light cameras that almost all studies I've seen indicate makes the streets safer, especially for bicyclists and pedestrians, which includes me. There is no constitutional right to run red lights, I see no civil liberty issue there.
As for seat-belt use, I believe the data-based insurance industry is convinced they reduce injury severity and fatalities, and I have no reason not to believe that. Seat-belts: I used to ignore them until I rented a car in a foreign country that had a mandatory seat-belt law, and as a guest, I did want to follow their laws. So I got in the habit of using them, so am glad that such laws existed. That is the reality of how such laws can have an effect.
Since minorities get the same safety benefit from seat-belt use, I see no civil rights issue here.
-
- +0
-
-
written by DeusEx, March 14, 2010
"A "nanny" is a perfectly respectable occupation, yet any time the government tries to protect ordinary people it seems the usual suspects decry a "nanny state" as though that (perhaps sexist) derision sheds any light."
A nanny is a perfectly respectable private occupation, hired voluntarily by families to care for children. Being a nanny is not a legitimate function of government, that's the point of the distinction that I think you missed. Government should legitimately protect us from other people who risk our safety. Government should not be protecting us "from ourselves" and making personal choices for us in our day to day lives. Would you want the government making nutrition choices for you and banning certain foods? I don't see the difference between that and seat belt laws.
"the same with red light cameras that almost all studies I've seen indicate makes the streets safer"
No, sorry:
http://www.ridelust.com/red-light-cameras-just-dont-work/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/chicago-burb-ditches-red-light-cameras-no-safety-advantage.ars
http://hscweb3.hsc.usf.edu/health/now/?p=404
Red light cameras do nothing to improve safety at best and increase accidents at worst. They, like most traffic enforcement, are about revenue generation, not safety.
"There is no constitutional right to run red lights, I see no civil liberty issue there."
Obviously the issue is with the method of enforcement rather than the offense itself. And just because something is Constitutional doesn't make it okay.
"As for seat-belt use, I believe the data-based insurance industry is convinced they reduce injury severity and fatalities, and I have no reason not to believe that."
Nobody disputes that, it is simply irrelevant to what we are discussing: the legitimate role of government.
"Seat-belts: I used to ignore them until I rented a car in a foreign country that had a mandatory seat-belt law, and as a guest, I did want to follow their laws. So I got in the habit of using them, so am glad that such laws existed. That is the reality of how such laws can have an effect."
More irrelevancy.
"Since minorities get the same safety benefit from seat-belt use, I see no civil rights issue here."
Civil rights aren't just about protecting minorities from racial discrimination. They apply to every citizen in the US and are meant to protect us from overreaching government.
A nanny is a perfectly respectable private occupation, hired voluntarily by families to care for children. Being a nanny is not a legitimate function of government, that's the point of the distinction that I think you missed. Government should legitimately protect us from other people who risk our safety. Government should not be protecting us "from ourselves" and making personal choices for us in our day to day lives. Would you want the government making nutrition choices for you and banning certain foods? I don't see the difference between that and seat belt laws.
"the same with red light cameras that almost all studies I've seen indicate makes the streets safer"
No, sorry:
http://www.ridelust.com/red-light-cameras-just-dont-work/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/chicago-burb-ditches-red-light-cameras-no-safety-advantage.ars
http://hscweb3.hsc.usf.edu/health/now/?p=404
Red light cameras do nothing to improve safety at best and increase accidents at worst. They, like most traffic enforcement, are about revenue generation, not safety.
"There is no constitutional right to run red lights, I see no civil liberty issue there."
Obviously the issue is with the method of enforcement rather than the offense itself. And just because something is Constitutional doesn't make it okay.
"As for seat-belt use, I believe the data-based insurance industry is convinced they reduce injury severity and fatalities, and I have no reason not to believe that."
Nobody disputes that, it is simply irrelevant to what we are discussing: the legitimate role of government.
"Seat-belts: I used to ignore them until I rented a car in a foreign country that had a mandatory seat-belt law, and as a guest, I did want to follow their laws. So I got in the habit of using them, so am glad that such laws existed. That is the reality of how such laws can have an effect."
More irrelevancy.
"Since minorities get the same safety benefit from seat-belt use, I see no civil rights issue here."
Civil rights aren't just about protecting minorities from racial discrimination. They apply to every citizen in the US and are meant to protect us from overreaching government.
-
- +0
-
-
written by forsanri, March 14, 2010
a Rhode Island police officer can stop you at any time already for the following reasons:
"Were you text messaging on your phone?"
"You swerved a little on the road....are you ok?"
"I need to see your vehicle registration/inspection sticker/proof of insurance/drivers license, etc."
We just don't need another potential drug user/dealer to come and harass us on the road. Will Gablinske include accompanying legislation to require mandatory drug testing for police departments?
"Were you text messaging on your phone?"
"You swerved a little on the road....are you ok?"
"I need to see your vehicle registration/inspection sticker/proof of insurance/drivers license, etc."
We just don't need another potential drug user/dealer to come and harass us on the road. Will Gablinske include accompanying legislation to require mandatory drug testing for police departments?
-
- +1
-
-
written by Bruce Reilly, March 14, 2010
DX, thanks for the link.
Forsanri: You might want to point out that (in this era of complete public confidence in the PD), these folks pulling people over are armed to the teeth, and have the authority to do just about anything under the banner of "reasonable suspicion."
Barry: To say "Since minorities get the same safety benefit from seat-belt use, I see no civil rights issue here." You either truly live in blissful ignorance or are being sarcastic. I don't know you well enough to say which it is. But as DX points out, Civil Rights are for all, holding major significance since the 18th century.
For Gablinske's own press conference to attempt an outflanking of the obvious Civil Rights implications proves that he realizes its a civil rights fiasco in the making... but we should bypass it in the name of safety.
What Ben Franklin say about safety?
(Maybe its just a huge conspiracy to get us to use mass transit?)
Forsanri: You might want to point out that (in this era of complete public confidence in the PD), these folks pulling people over are armed to the teeth, and have the authority to do just about anything under the banner of "reasonable suspicion."
Barry: To say "Since minorities get the same safety benefit from seat-belt use, I see no civil rights issue here." You either truly live in blissful ignorance or are being sarcastic. I don't know you well enough to say which it is. But as DX points out, Civil Rights are for all, holding major significance since the 18th century.
For Gablinske's own press conference to attempt an outflanking of the obvious Civil Rights implications proves that he realizes its a civil rights fiasco in the making... but we should bypass it in the name of safety.
What Ben Franklin say about safety?
(Maybe its just a huge conspiracy to get us to use mass transit?)
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bruce Reilly, March 27, 2010
I went to this hearing primarily so I could testify on the Racial Profiling bill. The Seatbelt Bill was pulled form the agenda!
What was still there: the "Inattentive Driving" bill.
One man testified in support. Rep. Newberry (Smithfield) made a few comments about how this bill was so inexact and vague, it probably had no chance of passing constitutional standards.
As the only person testifying in opposition, I merely seconded the Representative. Makes things easier.
What was still there: the "Inattentive Driving" bill.
One man testified in support. Rep. Newberry (Smithfield) made a few comments about how this bill was so inexact and vague, it probably had no chance of passing constitutional standards.
As the only person testifying in opposition, I merely seconded the Representative. Makes things easier.
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
