Permit me my 2 cents here.
I must express my absolute disagreement with forced seatbelt usage. Forcing me to wear a seatbelt puts my safety at risk by violating my right to self defense. It is irrelevant what seatbelt usage does or doesn't do for others.
Let me explain why I don't wear seat belts even though I am penalized for it from time to time. The first point I wish to make is simply to disarm oneself of the notion that Governments are always right. I prefer to think of them as always wrong, until I have evidence to the contrary. This, in fact, is SOLON'S LAW:
SOLON'S LAW
Any action or policy flowing from government is ignorant, mischievous, and dangerous--until such time as it is proven to be otherwise.
Easy examples are the Canadian Government's endorsement of Thalidomide and Urea Formaldehyde Foam insulation. In the former case, thousands of deformed children were born to early deaths or hopeless existence; In the latter instance, the Government subsequently paid for the removal of this insulation from thousands upon thousands of homes when the private sector discovered the cancer risk. Government is a necessary whore, but not an overly capable one.
So moving on: Vehicles have four basic interfaces that may involve the passengers in accident--the driver and passenger sides--and the front and the back. In the instance of someone running into someone at a right angle to his travel so there is no shearing off--seatbelts are a definite plus. For someone strapped inches from either of the 4 car doors, and getting creamed at right angles--seatbelts remove all opportunity for the exercise of self defense, and they practically ensure death or disability in any instance where the door touches the person as an extension of the vehicle, post, or object that moves against the door (or is encountered by the door) with sufficient force to bring it into contact with any part of the person's body. Of course, if contact is evaded, even by a millionth of an inch--there is no injury. The problem is that the force being applied will, generally draw the person's head and body toward and against the door and window (or at least sufficiently to meet the carrier of the force)--precisely BECAUSE the orientation of the body to the force, is at best neutral and therefore easily overcome--when held in place by the seat belt harness. It takes very little force to whip the head against the window which is against the other vehicle, tree, etc. The mere swinging of the car will do it.
The safest ride for any person, child or otherwise (assuming that the only concern being addressed is that of safety), is strapped into the middle of the back seat. Children can be taught to wedge their bodies betwen the two front seats in the case of an accident. This is the safest place for an unbuckled passenger just before impact. Children (and adults) who are drilled a few times in this simple act of defense can easily take a defensive position within 2 or 3 seconds of warning.
It must be recognized that the bombardment of slick advertisemnets, where people without any personal knowledge of seatbelts repeat the words they are told to say--is not a compelling argument for seatbelt usage. Everyone is chanting the divine mantra, but who did the tests originally, and what was the motivation? And what were the tests really testing??
Sealt belt testing does not utilize live people in dangerous crashes exercising their self defense abilities. This is considered unethical, although I disagree that it is. What the tests show is that a strapped-in egg suffers less injuries than an egg merely tossed on the seat. HOW SURPRISING! Thank GOD for research!
I do not wear seatbelts on the highway because highway conditions and speeds have practically eliminated the possibility of a skilled driver being hit from the side--the most deadly acccident, and the one where you DEFINITELY do not want a seat belt on you. It does not entirely eliminate the possibility of not being able to avoid someone illegally crossing in front of you, but in the case where it could not be avoided, assuming highway speed--self defense would be a better option than seatbelts although it would rarely suffice.
When I speak of self defense, I mean whatever a calculating person can do to minimize the chance of death or injury when not prevented from action by being stapped into the death seat. The primary defense at all times is to get away from the door and toward the center of the car. When control over the accident can no longer be exercised, the person must remove both hands from the wheel, and wedge his body between the two front seats, with his arms wrapped fully around the opposite seat, and as much as possible of his shoulder behind the opposite seat. In ALL cases of accidents at city speeds--this will prevent all but minor injuries. Of course, the degree to which one may act in their own self defense is dependent on factors such as age, ability, health, mental quickness, etc. There are cases where a person is simply better off wearing a seat belt, and hoping that nobody ever hits their door at 30 miles per hour.
I would be absolutely willing to be the living participant in a true seatbelt study where the ACTUAL damage to a belted dummy is compared to the ACTUAL damage to an unbelted dummy (that would be me)--at city speeds from all directions. We know that an unbelted egg suffers damage (SURPRISE!). But what of a human being who is capable of self defense? Of course, I would sign all necessary wavers...
I guarantee that I can go through any such series of tests without sustaining any injury of significance. The belted dummy will be killed in most instances of same side collision--especially if it has a long and flexible neck-- and in many instances of other side collision, where the vehicle spins or shears in such a way as to cause a secondary collision on the occupied side.
As far as statistics go. I know of one 3 year study where every single reported traffic accident was taken into account, and it showed a 75 % greater likelihood of death or injury for the belted group. I believe I also read that Hawaii shows an increase in death and injury since the legislation. However, my argument is not based on statistics. I don't know how many people not wearing seatbelts actually utilize self defense. I do not speak for those that don't. I speak for those who wish to have the right to self defense; Those who wish to have the option of yanking their child across the car, and away from the door as they see a 16 year old in a stolen 4x4 bounching off of a post and heading straight for the door where the child might have been strapped. This child is either with you for the rest of your life, or this child is dead forever--no more hugs--not ever.
I do not wear a seatbelt for the simple reason that I believe it eliminates my right to self defense. I don't say what anyone else ought to do. For those intending any kind of a front end collision at more than 20 miles per hour, and without any intention of being anything other than an egg--I would probably recommend the serious consideration of a full harness, as well as a bee mask.
I have paid a couple of seat belt tickets. Rather than contribute to medical costs that I have not caused, I have simply reduced my annual contribution to the police association by the exact costs of my fines. It comes out of their pockets. This is the beauty of lving in a free world. There are creative ways to avoid resentment and anger...
As far as social costs of accidents: Seatbelts do not cause the accidents. The insurance industry understands full well how to surcharge those people who can afford to drive vehicles, live in homes, wear jewelry, etc. They know how to assess for CAUSES of accidents or for prevalence of accidents. This is their job and has nothing to do with my arguments. If Insurance Companies wish to charge different rates for those drivers who would declare themselves as non seat-belt users or non smoke alarm users--whatever--no problem. It is up to individuals and their groups to fight and oppose legislation or treatment which can be proven unfair and unjustified. It is up to me to know that Government seatbelt legislation was wrongheaded, and that they know it; And that I don't buy it... |
