Mandatory Seat Belts (Reprise)
-
Mandatory seatbelt (and helmet) laws do not generally arouse my passion, for two reasons. First, although I consider them paternalistic invasions of my autonomy they also have no immediate or practical effect on me: I use seatbelts and helmets by choice, as do most people I know. Second, given the very real benefits they provide and the relatively low costs they entail – and given that on such bases only one state in the Union currently does not mandate the use of seatbelts – I consider them largely a fait accompli. That doesn’t make me agree with such laws or embrace them; it merely makes worrying about them a poor use of my time and energy.
That said, I happen now to live in that one state (New Hampshire), and when the issue arises – as it does from time to time – proponents of such laws tend to be particularly dismissive of any concerns about civil liberties, to characterize those who raise such concerns as egocentric simpletons, and to trivialize their opposition as merely a childish and irrational reaction to “being told what to do.” That dismissive and disrespectful tone does stir my passion. This letter, like its predecessor, was written in response to such an editorial (about a year after the first) in the local newspaper, Foster’s Daily Democrat in Dover, NH. And like its predecessor it was submitted to Foster’s the day the editorial ran. It was being considered for publication when the news editors decided instead to publish a multi-part series on public reaction to the seatbelt proposal, and it was never used.
As a matter of interest, I have included at the end of this entry two additional edits, requested by the editor at Foster’s when he was considering it for publication to fit the piece to their space constraints. The edits are shorter, and therefore less detailed but more succinct. I have provided them as an example of the tradeoffs required to get articles published. For reference, the “letter” version is about the maximum length for many publications (like Foster’s and The Boston Globe) but about twice the maximum for The New York Times.
- 15 January 2005
(full length version)
Once again the proposal has arisen to mandate seat belt use in New Hampshire, and once again the Foster’s editorial staff has taken the side of the ‘virtuous’ (“Individual rights are not violated by a seat belt law”, 5 Jan 2005), throwing out the phrase “Live Free and Die” to belittle defenders of liberty and arguing that the end justifies the means.
Notwithstanding the bold assertion with which they titled their editorial, their argument never actually addresses whether seat belt laws violate individual rights. Rather, they seem to concede the point and respond with a resounding “So What? It is justified!” The thrust of their justification is:
- That the human cost – 41 extra deaths last year, and the emotional trauma for friends and families that accompany them – dwarfs whatever (miniscule) price we would pay in liberty.
- That the economic costs – for medical treatment – are borne by society either through insurance costs (if paid by insurance companies) or through the social safety net (if we enforce personal responsibility by letting insurance companies deny coverage for injuries sustained while not wearing a seat belt); and that our financial participation gives society the right to enforce constraints on individual behavior that affect those economic costs.