Seatbelt law restricts freedom of choice
Campus Times
November 13, 1998
by Ryan Allen
Arts and Entertainment Editor
Nine out of 10 California drivers wear seatbelts, the highest average in
the nation according to a recent study. Now, take a moment. Why is this?
Is it because California drivers are afraid that, if they get pulled
over and caught without their seatbelt on, they will receive a costly fine
for a victimless crime, or, is it because drivers are much more aware of
the dangers of driving without a seatbelt?
Either way, the plain and simple fact is seat belts save lives. Whether
people should get slapped with a fine by the government for something that
should be entirely up to the discretion of the individual is a concern,
however.
According to California Vehicle Code 27315D, a police officer can pull
someone over and write them up a $15 first-offense ticket ($30 after court
penalties and assessments) just for not wearing a seatbelt. Thirty dollars
is not a lot of money, and this figure might be lower than a lot of people
originally thought, but this is not about money. There is a basic principle
about the powers that be having an opinion and consequently lobbying for
a law on a safety issue that should be left entirely up to the individual.
This is not a piece of legislation that holds the same weight of importance
as murder or even burglary laws. If there is a room of 100 people and they
are asked if murder or theft should be illegal, chances are all will say
yes. If this same group of people is asked about the seatbelt law or even
the law that requires motorcycle riders and bike riders under the age of
18 to wear a helmet, there will never be a unanimous vote.
Is it a coincidence that both motorcycle and bicycle helmet laws passed
within a few years of each other? The helmet manufacturers seem to be the
biggest beneficiaries of these laws. Their lobbying helped make a law that
took away the freedom of choice without worry of penalty. These are issues
in which the choice does not effect anyone but the individual making that
choice.
If someone chooses not to wear a helmet or seatbelt, then the risk of
serious injury, if not death, is taken by that person. The only individuals
they would be harming by breaking these laws would be themselves. Laws should
be made for the protection of others and of oneself.
These are personal issues that most people do not think about and probably
do out of habit rather than for fear of prosecution. If a person is totally
against wearing a seatbelt, for whatever reason, then they should not have
to.
Now as far as passengers are concerned-it is the responsibility of the
driver to enforce their personal beliefs on the passenger. In a head-on-collision,
anyone not restrained or strapped down will bounce around the car and become
a serious danger to others. So, if someone gets in a car where people are
not wearing seatbelts, they do not have to ride in that car if the people
refuse to put them on. At the same time, if a driver refuses to let anyone
in his car who does not put a safety restraint on and someone absolutely
refuses to wear one, then that person does not have to get in the car.
There definitely should be a safety restraint law for minors, and anyone
who does not use the proper child safety restraints should be dragged out
into the middle of the street and shot. It should be up to the parents to
enforce a habit of personal safety into their children. However, the current
seatbelt legislation for adults is just another law passed by some self-righteous
activists who pass laws just for the sake of passing laws.
Ryan Allen, a senior communications major, is arts and entertainment
editor of the Campus Times. He can be reached by e-mail at allenr@ulv.edu.
