Virginia's "Click It or Ticket" Campaign

[TrainTrac]

A great column by Dr. Walter E. Williams on the issue of mandatory seat belt laws. Compulsory laws such as this and mandatory helmet laws serve no purpose other than to generate revenue for the state.



With that said, I always wear my seat belt, and if I ever buy a motor cycle, I'd wear a helmet, not because the gov't makes me, but because I choose to do so because it's just plain smart.

Click it or ticket

By Walter E. Williams



May 24, 2006





Virginia's secretary of transportation sent out a letter announcing the state's annual "Click It or Ticket" campaign May 22 through June 4. I responded to the secretary of transportation with my own letter that in part reads:



"Mr. Secretary: This is an example of the disgusting abuse of state power. Each of us owns himself, and it follows that we should have the liberty to take risks with our own lives but not that of others. That means it's a legitimate use of state power to mandate that cars have working brakes because if my car has poorly functioning brakes, I risk the lives of others and I have no right to do so. If I don't wear a seatbelt I risk my own life, which is well within my rights. As to your statement 'Lack of safety belt use is a growing public health issue that . . . also costs us all billions of dollars every year,' that's not a problem of liberty. It's a problem of socialism. No human should be coerced by the state to bear the medical expense, or any other expense, for his fellow man. In other words, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another is morally offensive."



My letter went on to tell the secretary that I personally wear a seatbelt each time I drive; it's a good idea. However, because something is a good idea doesn't necessarily make a case for state compulsion. The justifications used for "Click It or Ticket" easily provide the template and soften us up for other forms of government control over our lives.



For example, my weekly exercise routine consists of three days' weight training and three days' aerobic training. I think it's a good idea. Like seatbelt use, regular exercise extends lives and reduces health care costs. Here's my question to government officials and others who sanction the "Click It or Ticket" campaign: Should the government mandate daily exercise for the same reasons they cite to support mandatory seatbelt use, namely, that to do so would save lives and save billions of health care dollars?



If we accept the notion that government ought to protect us from ourselves, we're on a steep slippery slope. Obesity is a major contributor to hypertension, coronary disease and diabetes, and leads not only to many premature deaths but billions of dollars in health care costs. Should government enforce, depending on a person's height, sex and age, a daily 1,400 to 2,000-calorie intake limit? There's absolutely no dietary reason to add salt to our meals. High salt consumption can lead to high blood pressure, which can then lead to stroke, heart attack, osteoporosis and asthma. Should government outlaw adding salt to meals? While you might think that these government mandates would never happen, be advised that there are busybody groups currently pushing for government mandates on how much and what we can eat.



Government officials, if given power to control us, soon become zealots. Last year, Maryland state troopers were equipped with night vision goggles, similar to those used by our servicemen in Iraq, to catch night riders not wearing seatbelts. Maryland state troopers boasted that they bagged 44 drivers traveling unbuckled under the cover of darkness.



Philosopher John Stuart Mill, in his treatise "On Liberty," said it best: "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical

 

[Thomas Rogers]

If by "serve no purpose other than..." you discount the significantly reduced liklihood of serious injury and death through their use and the associated reduction in medical insurance costs that goes with reduction in claims that we all enjoy then sure, I guess they "serve no other purpose."



Not trying to be a wise-ass, but there are TONS of laws on the books that appear to only affect the person breaking them, but as you consider them further others are affected.



TJR

 

[Dre L]

I'm all for the law. It's hard enough to get people who don't want to buckle up, to buckle up.



With the law it's like "listen sh**bag, I'm not paying a ticket for you, or getting nailed for manslaughter because your dumbass doesn't want to... well you get the idea.



If they pull that I'm in the back seat, the law doesn't apply crap, I slam on the brakes and convince them to click it, or get the fu** out.

 

[Dreman]

Texas has the same thing going on.



Even though I always wear my seatbelt, I do find it annoying to have someone write me a ticket if I happen to leave it off. That said, I'd rather have the annoyance than no law at all.



Laws like this are a benefit to the community at large, by reducing the damage to it's citizens. It also reduces the load on our hospitals, emegency personnel, and insurance companies. And if you don't think reducing the load on insurance companies is good, just remember that insurance companies will make money no matter what their costs are. All that changes with higher costs is we wind up paying higher premiums, or have fewer companies to choose from.

 

[TrainTrac]

If by "serve no purpose other than..." you discount the significantly reduced liklihood of serious injury and death through their use and the associated reduction in medical insurance costs that goes with reduction in claims that we all enjoy then sure, I guess they "serve no other purpose."

TJR,



You're missing the point. Why should the government mandate something such as this? It's not a function of government. If a purpose of these laws is to reduce medical insurance costs, then why doesn't gov't pass on the revenue earned from tickets issued for breaking these laws to the insurance companies? That would certainly reduce medical insurance costs.



Insurance companies can reduce their costs in other ways, like adding a clause to policies stating that they have the right to refuse payment on claims for injuries sustained from not wearing a seat belt or helmet. This would be no different than offering better premiums for non-smokers than smokers.



It boils down to the fact that too many people believe that a function of gov't is to protect us from ourselves, and our own stupidity. Where do you draw the line with this? This concept could intrude much further into our lives, as Dr. Williams illustrates in his column.

 

[TrainTrac]

Laws like this are a benefit to the community at large, by reducing the damage to it's citizens. It also reduces the load on our hospitals, emegency personnel, and insurance companies.

So, should we continue further with this?

If we accept the notion that government ought to protect us from ourselves, we're on a steep slippery slope. Obesity is a major contributor to hypertension, coronary disease and diabetes, and leads not only to many premature deaths but billions of dollars in health care costs. Should government enforce, depending on a person's height, sex and age, a daily 1,400 to 2,000-calorie intake limit? There's absolutely no dietary reason to add salt to our meals. High salt consumption can lead to high blood pressure, which can then lead to stroke, heart attack, osteoporosis and asthma. Should government outlaw adding salt to meals? While you might think that these government mandates would never happen, be advised that there are busybody groups currently pushing for government mandates on how much and what we can eat.

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

Personally, I use a seat belt whenever in the front seat (driving or passenger). But what get's me is they are doing the Click It or Ticket in Arkansas as well, but yet you can ride a motorcycle without a helmet.



Makes a lot of sence, right?



It's a choice. But remember, liberals (that includes many of the "moderate" republicans with most democrats) only want choice when it comes to abortion. You should not be able to choose to own firearms, they don't see it necessary. You can't choose to wear a seatbelt, it's required. You can't choose which school to send your kids to because they don't think voucers are a good idea. You can't choose many things any more.



I look at a lot of stuff we have to do nowadays and wonder how our grandparents and parents survived past 2 years old:

1) Mandatory car seats for children under 40lbs

2) Mandatory booster seats for children between 40 and 80lbs

3) Mandatory seatbelt use

4) Mandatory Life Jacket use for children under 18

5) Many states have mandatory motorcycle helmet use

6) Some states have mandatory bycicle helmet use

7) You cannot have a shower head that flows more than 7 gallons per minute

8) You cannot buy a new toilet that uses more than 1.2 gallons per flush

9) Whisky can contain no less than 40% alcohol

10) Several states are now requiring RFID tags on all farm animals and pets

11) You cannot present a decenting voice about a political candidate 60 days prior to an election



Most of these are a good idea to CHOOSE to do. I have a problem being forced to do them.



The Federal Register is over 70,000 pages... The Federal Register is the listing of all federal registrations and requirements on products/services/etc. Not the actual regulations, but the listing of regulations and where to find them.

 

[TomT]

If everyone in this country was capable of making competent decisions than we wouldn't need laws like this. But lets face it, we have way to many dumb-asses in this country. That's why we have stupid warning labels on every product. When we can stop morons from breeding then maybe we can have sensible laws.

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

TomT-



Agreed. However, maybe we need to get rid of some of these warnings for the sake of the future.... it would be like adding chlorine to the gene pool.

 

[FL ST]

People b!tch and complain all the time about anything and everything they want. Yes, it's a good idea to wear a seatbelt, yes accidents cost INSURANCE payers money, yes we choose what we want to do. However, for every action, there is an equal or opposite reaction. Most officers will never pull you over for a seatbelt infraction with the exception being MOST and the fact that this campaign runs for 2 weeks. And some officers will have to please their superiors with a few tickets.



You don't have to worry about it if you wear or don't wear a safety belt because believe it or not I couldn't tell if you had your seatbelt on or not unless I pull you over for something else.



Here in FL we have a law that motorcyclist can ride without a helmet if they have $250,000 in insurance. Do you honestly think I can or will pull over every biker around here and ask them to show me proof of that much insurance?



You live in America, you must no by now that you have to give liberty to receive liberty.



Yakov Smirnoff said it best, "Only in America."

 

[TrainTrac]

But lets face it, we have way to many dumb-asses in this country. That's why we have stupid warning labels on every product.

No, we have stupid warning labels because tort law is out of control, and you can practically sue someone for looking at you cross-eyed, or sue someone because you yourself commited a stupid act. For example, the idiotic woman who sued McDonalds because she spilled hot coffe in her lap while driving her car.

 

[Tom Schindler]

If everyone in this country was capable of making competent decisions than we wouldn't need laws like this. But lets face it, we have way to many dumb-asses in this country. That's why we have stupid warning labels on every product. When we can stop morons from breeding then maybe we can have sensible laws.

We are making the decisions we want to make, thjat is why they are decisions. You may or may not agree with my decision, but just because my decision is not what you think it is does not mean it is incompetent.



If all the idiots that don''t wear seatbelts get killed, we are stopping the breeding process of stupid people. Ever look at it that way?



I wear my seatbelt...always. Not, "sometimes", "whenever I remember", "sometimes I forget"... but always. I don't wear it only for my safety, but I wear it for my friends, family, police, paramedics, tow truck driver, etc. I want to spare my family the greif of the loss of me if I am involved in an accident that I would have survived if I was wearing my seatbelt. I want to do the same for my friends. I wan't to spare the police, paramedics, "clean-up crew" from having to look at another mangled body at the scene of an accident that I could have survived if I were wearing my belt.



I did recieve a seatbelt violation once. I was driving my Escort GT and was issued a citation for not wearing a seatbelt. The officer was only padding the ticket since I had automatic seatbelts and I could not disconnect them. (It was a 1989 Escort GT)





Tom

 

[TomT]

If all the idiots that don''t wear seatbelts get killed, we are stopping the breeding process of stupid people. Ever look at it that way?

And if we quit feeding the homeless, and giving welfare to the needy we wouldn't have those problems either. Lets face it. There's just to many liberals that think we have to "provide" for everyone incapable or unwilling to provide for themselves. So it's just not going to happen.

 

[Tom Schindler]

Tom,



It was ment as a joke. I know it isn't going to happen since stupid people are born from two very intellegent people also.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Nope, TrainTrac, I didn't miss the point. What you and others describe is the "slippery slope" argument, or the "well if it's seatbelts now, will it be 'fat people' later" argument.



There is merit to that POV, but frankly, somethings should be regulated when people simply can't make good decisions for themselves AND if affects them and others.



TJR

 

[Richard L]

Most states have similar laws regarding the manditory us of seat belts, and car seats for children, etc. All of these laws and regulations are not necessarily designed to protect someone from them selves as much as to protect others.



Yes, even the seat belt law is designed to help you from someone who does not wear a seatbelt. If you get in an accident that is your fault, You are liable for all their injuries. Those medical cost can far exceed your insurance coverage. By requiring seat belts, the law helps to reduce the severity of the injured persons.



There are countries in Europe that have manditory seat belt laws but do not actively enforce the law by stopping and ticketing drivers just for not wearing the seat belts. What they do is allow the Insurance companies to reduce the medical payments, pain and suffering, etc for anyone involved in the accident who was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident.



The same principles would apply to motorcycle helmet laws.



As for the water flow in your shower, or the maximum amount of water used per toilet flush, etc, These are designed to protect those limited resources so that everyone who lives in that community has their fair share an access to the available water. If someone is rich and can afford all the water they want, they could depleat the supply and deprive others from getting a fair share of the water supply.



The limitations and restrictions quoted in R. Shek's post above are all designed to reduce injury claims or someone from indirectly effecting someone elses right to life, liberty and persuit of happyness.



...Rich

 

[TJ Laubach]

Wow...this discussion has turned into a real melee. My two cents as a resident of Virginia...not wearing your seat belts is just God's way of paring down the gene pool

 

[LoriMaury Kimbrough]

I too wear my seat belt all of the time...even in the back seat. The one think that I do believe in 150% is the laws regarding childern being properly belted in. Kids, especially babies, can't make these decisions for themselves and some parents are too stupid or thoughtless to make the correct decisions for their children. I learned a particually hard lesson when my daughter was about 5 months old. She was in her car seat and the car seat was properly strapped in the car, but she wasn't strapped in the seat. I had to come to a quick stop and she went flying out of the seat and into the floor board. I was very lucky that she only had a small scratch on her head. From that moment on, she was always stapped in her car seat properly. I feel guilty about it to this day, at that happened 19 years ago. So anything to protect kids, I'm all for.



I like the idea of reducing your insurance coverage if you are not wearing a seat belt or helmet. Makes perfect sense to me.



The County that I work for is considering higher health insurance rates for smokes or employees who live with smokers. They are also considering the same thing for over-wieght people. That one will be a little more difficult because they have to find a resonable way to define 'over-wieght'.

 

[Tom Schindler]

The one think that I do believe in 150% is the laws regarding childern being properly belted in. Kids, especially babies, can't make these decisions for themselves and some parents are too stupid or thoughtless to make the correct decisions for their children.

I could not agree more. Children can not make decisions on thier own.





Tom

 

[Nelson Atwell]

Mandatory laws for children's car seats make sense, but a lot of the other laws listed above are excessive. If an adult chooses to put his life at risk by doing something stupid, there shouldn't be any law prohibiting it. All those laws do is weaken the gene pool by allowing idiots to roam the earth and continue reproduction.



If you agree with seat belts, would you also agree for mandatory use of condoms. Afterall, safe sex prevents disease. Maybe handshaking should be outlawed, because most germs are spread by personal contact. Perhaps we should just bow like asians do?



As you see, lawmakers have gradually added a heap of silly laws upon us, and if the trend continues, we'll all be lawbreakers, because none of will be able to keep up with all the stupid things out there. Then none of will be able to look down on the immigrants breaking the law by coming here illegally.



Jesus said "he without sin, cast the first stone". Are there really any of us who have never broken a law? I really doubt it.