SB 88 concerning seat belts, passed the Senate 26 to 21. This requires all occupants, as opposed to just the occupants of the front seat, of a motor vehicle to wear a seat belt. Occupants of pickup trucks and SUVs plated as trucks would now be required to wear seat belts (currently they are not). The following are excluded from the requirement: farm trucks being used on a farm for agricultural pursuits, vehicles in a parade, living quarters of an RV, the treatment area of an ambulance, the sleeping area of a tractor, and vehicles not equipped with seat belts.
Mike Sylvester says
We have some major problems in need of reform in Indiana.
Making law abiding citizens wear seat belts is certainly not on the list of dire problems we face.
I am ashamed to say that my State Senator, Tom Wyss, is the author of this silly seat belt law.
I attended a meeting of the teenage Republicans in Allen County this last Saturday. I am no longer a Republican; I am a Libertarian. I attended because I wanted to support Jeff Fraser (A student who was expelled from Carroll High School over writing a satire).
Tom Wyss was present. He and I discussed seat belt laws. He gave me his normal sales pitch. I did not buy it and I told him we had real problems in Indiana that he should worry about instead of seat belts.
Mike Sylvester
Doug says
Regardless of what you think of seat belt laws generally, I think (though I could be wrong) it’s safe to say that making a distinction between cars and passenger pickup trucks is arbitrary. If it’s good for one, it’s good for the other. And, if it’s bad for one, it’s bad for the other.
As for the policy itself, I think it’s a good one. Sure, the government is telling you what to do, but it’s a pretty minimal imposition, and, legally, driving is not a right, it’s a privilege. There are a hundred other rules imposed upon every driver.
In return for this minimal imposition, the safety benefits are significant. If everyone was financially capable of paying for their own auto injuries out of their own pocket, this wouldn’t necessarily be a public concern. But, as it is, insured motorists who are injured raise the premiums of other motorists. Uninsured motorists who are injured get served at emergency rooms whether they can pay or not, and the public picks up the tab.
Even if I weren’t in favor of the policy, it’d be hard to get riled up over seat belts when we have the President violating the FISA act to tap our phones without a warrant. (But I digress.)
Mike Sylvester says
I agree that making a distinction between cars and trucks is silly. I think that ALL SEAT BELT LAWS are silly.
I also agree that it is a pretty minimal “imposition”.
How many minimal impositions does it take to add up to a serious imposition?
Take the Federal income tax code for example. Did you know that:
The tax code was started in 1913. It was 37 pages long and it was designed to be a temporary system to raise money. It was as you say a minor “imposition.”
In 2004 the tax code had grown to 61,226 pages. The US Treasury Department estimates the costs of complying with the Federal Income Tax Code is 125 billion dollars a year. Just to put that number in perspective, annual military spending is 400 billion a year.
Is this still a minor “imposition?”
Mike Sylvester
brian says
Why should government mandate competent adults wear a seat belt? I think it should be up to each individual. If one does not want to wear a seatbelt, then he can pay the consequences should he be in an accident. It has been well publicized about the prevention of injuries if one wears a seat belt, now let the individual decide and accept responsibility for his own actions.
It is time for the government to get out of our personal lives and let man do as we choose on topics like this. We are each accountable for our own actions.
Doug says
I could get on board with that if everyone who wanted to decline wearing seatbelts signed an iron clad agreement to die if they were injured once their money ran out and prohibiting a dime of public funds or subsidies being spent for their healthcare. We’d also have to address whether their family would have any obligation to provide any care for them if they were injured because of their failure to wear a seatbelt.
In short, if it was a decision that only affected the decision maker, I could agree with the logic. Otherwise, not so much.