[2] Seat belt use was voluntary until New York became the first state to require vehicle occupants to wear seat belts, as of December 1, 1984[update]. Seatbelts are designed to keep you safe in the event of a crash. The additional penalty is calculated as follows: $10 state penalty required by PC 1464, $7 county penalty required by GC 76000(e), $5 court facilities construction penalty required by GC 70372(a), $5 DNA Identification Fund penalty required by GC 76104.6 and 76104.7, $2 emergency medical services penalty required by GC 76000.5. Do they pull the You are on our roads, so you follow our rules. card or something? one of the dumbest things ive ever heard. When the laws in both countries were updated in the early 1990s to include back-seat adult passengers, the effect was less noticeable. Is the seat belt law unconstitutional? florida - Legal Answers - Avvo I recently received a ticket just for not wearing my seat belt, and i One observational study of 12,000 people in the region of Sao Paulo, Brazil, found that about 30% of people were wearing masks incorrectly either exposing their nose or mouth and nose, although the paper is still to be published in an academic journal. ''The big heaters were all over this one,'' said one Illinois lawmaker at the time. [7], Note: As of 2017, aggregate seat belt usage in road vehicles in the entire United States is 89.7%.[7]. This is why the seat belt analogy is perhaps less illuminating than the analogy of drunken or impaired driving. @Rude_Bear I bet their insurance companies do though. @dynamicduo Should people also be free to foot their own medical costs when they go flying through the windshield? The police were against having to stop motorists to enforce the law. @oratio Nope. @Phobia, I get that. Published: August 31, 2020 copy page link Noriko Hayashi/Bloomberg via Getty Images When David Hollister introduced a seat belt bill in Michigan in the early 1980s that levied a fine for not. They are not the panacea for irresponsible or negligent driving; yes, they are necessary, but there should be just as much of a concern over drivers talking on cell phones and driving like idiots. '', There were even accusations that G.M. In 1994, such an effort in North Dakota failed by a margin of nine percentage points. Seat belt laws have mainly been challenged as a violation of an individual's constitutionally protected right to privacy and as an invalid exercise of a state's constitutionally granted police power. No idea about the constitution as Im not American. The unvaccinated are more likely to contract the coronavirus and therefore to spread it. As one Bronx resident grumbled, "This is not supposed to be Russia where the government tells you what to do and when to do it.. Im in charge, you dont tell me what to do.. Everything you do, affects people around you. 3 Idaho, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Virginia's law is Secondary for adults but Primary for under 18. For the car manufacturers, the issue was cost. The child wouldnt know enough to put their own seatbelt on, but its still dangerous for themthus the laws can (at least theoretically) enforce the protection of others. [note 1] The table shows only the base fine, but not applicable add-on fees in many areas, such as the head injury fund and court security fees, which can increase the total assessed fine by up to a factor of five. Congress responded swiftly in 1974 by killing the interlock mechanism and further mandating that the annoying buzzing sound that indicated an unlatched seat belt could only last eight seconds. Seat Belts: Get the Facts | Transportation Safety | Injury Center | CDC Moreover, some seat-belt systems were defective.6 As a result, since 1985 the automakers have faced hundreds of millions of dollars in damages in hundreds of lawsuits. You are not responsible when you look at the passenger while talking, not when you reach for something in the glove compartment, or drink a beverage while driving. The controversy first heated up in 1973, when the NHTSA required all new cars to include an inexpensive technology called a seat belt interlock mechanism that prevented a vehicle from starting if the driver wasnt buckled up. Responsible driving is something that has to be included in the driving school, rather than banning it, and believe that will solve anything. These arguments have been rejected by the courts in Illinois, Iowa, and New Jersey, and also, we believe in New York. Yes, talking to passengers is actually distracting and, depending on the driver, can lower the quality of their driving, but its less so than when youre talking to an abstract person, where you have to pay attention to this object (which may be having signal issues, hard to hear, etc.) Cars already had seat belts, so all Detroit had to do was convince states to pass mandatory seat belt laws and it was off the hook for installing expensive air bags or automatic belts. But the seat belt laws took years to introduce fully. As for the promise that seat-belt laws would reduce auto insurance rates, there is no record of any insurance company ever reducing its rates because a seat-belt law was passed. We dont need millions of dollars for stricter seat-belt law enforcement. Seatbelt laws are only in the books because insurance companies lobbied for them. In a surprise ruling, the justices voted unanimously to block the Reagan administration and enforce the NHTSAs rule. Seat-belt laws infringe a persons rights as guaranteed in the Fourth, Fifth, and the Ninth Amendments, and the civil rights section of the Fourteenth Amendment. You won't have to hire lawyers or endure trials if you rely on our nifty app. These results are disappointing, the report added.7. 6 What states require a seatbelt in the backseat? You do not live on an island. If the government fails to regulate a product that IS dangerous, like a faulty crib or a swing we cry rat if something happens. Laws designed to protect us from ourselves may be well-intentioned, but they are an infringement of our freedom and are invariably counterproductive. Just take a look at that person at the four-way stop on their cell phone who takes forever to get moving (is s/he waiting for the sign to turn green?) The hundreds of millions of dollars spent in support of seat-belt laws have been wasted. Is Wearing A Seatbelt A Law - malcolmmackillop @Garebo California and many other states have laws against using cell phones in cars, and laws against driving like idiots, which they call reckless driving. As they have with masks, opponents initially derided seat belts as uncomfortable and constricting, and they portrayed state laws requiring the restraints as government overreach. called the allegations absolutely ridiculous., New York was the first state to pass a mandatory seat belt law followed by New Jersey. The fact that seatbelts are in the car shouldn't make it compulsory. While seat-belt use might save some people in certain kinds of traffic accidents, there is ample evidence that in other kinds, people have been more seriously injured and even killed only because they used seat belts. As I said, unconstitutional. No nonpsychiatric doctor would dare attempt to force a person to use a medical device or take a drug or have surgery or other medical treatment without full consent. We need a class-action suit or petition against the seat-belt demand before the next attack on our rights.. One of Hollisters colleagues in the Michigan House called the seat belt bill a pretty good lesson in mass hysteria created by a corporate-controlled media and warned that the government would outlaw smoking next. But I still ask, why isnt everything bad for you illegal then? I see no problem with dumb people getting tickets for endangering there own lives. Folks, the US Constitution outlines the specific powers of the federal government. petition: Seat Belt Ticket Law Unconstitutional Concerns about the slippery slope presented by rhetoric can work both ways. Utah County Sheriff Mike Smith stated that wearing masks is a "health issue, a community issue and should be addressed as such. Primary enforcement allows a law enforcement officer to stop and ticket a driver if they observe a violation. It was messy, fraught and slow. Writing for the New York Timess Personal Health column, Jane Brody argued convincingly that the new government mandate would save lives. And I think, though I am certainly not an expert on these things, that state seat belt laws would be constitutional under the 10th Amendment as it not something specifically mentioned or otherwise delegated in the constitution. To answer your question, yes - the license checkpoints and/or seat belt checkpoints are considered "regulatory" or "safety" checkpoints just like DUI checkpoints. In three states, Mississippi, Rhode Island, and Wyoming, the laws were passed without any penalty. Additionally, as many here hit on, it keeps insurance and health care costs down. That said, I would support an initiative to repeal the laws, but that aint gonna happen cause the cops need to fill the city coffers. One of the first things the Reagan administration did was to rescind the NHTSA rule requiring passive restraints. Still trying to figure out how wearing a seat belt impedes anyones liberty in a real, substantive manner. Its my problem and the problem for the few people I am directly in contact with. Eight counties, most of them heavily populated, voted to retain the law, and 85 counties voted to repeal it.. @robmandu Liberty- 1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice. 2 attorney answers. When David Hollister introduced a seat belt bill in Michigan in the early 1980s that levied a fine for not buckling up, the state representative received hate mail comparing him to Hitler. I haven't seen a bill this heavily lobbied in a long time. Do you think smoking is good for you too? I havent tested this, and I dont know anyone who has, but here is one argument: http://www.marcstevens.net/content/view/84/33/. The state has no authority to take chances with a persons body, the ultimate private property. Although the majority of people now face masks, some still see it as an infringement of their civil liberties (Credit: Alamy). The Gallup Opinion Index, report no. what can be done? Geez there are about 300 million Americans things are gonna happen to them. So it DOES affect others. A federal seat belt law would likely be unconstitutional. History has shown this to be the easy road to power for tyrants. All others are by default the province of the individual states and the People. Data collected by federal officials in New York suggested that 70% of front-seat motorists were adhering to the law two months later. People suffer from just those few things (if not McDonalds, any unhealthy eating habits) and if its about money, why are they still legal? And New Hampshire still does not have a law requiring adults to wear seat belts. What are laws, but limits on what you can and cannot do? [If seat belts became mandatory], proponents of the airbag, which inflates upon impact in a collision to protect riders, fear the device will never achieve widespread use, wrote the New York Times on 28 Feb 1985. We ask that this law be repealed. We discussed the driving on the phone thing last year its been shown to generally make drivers as dangerous as being drunk, from lack of attention to driving. In Illinois, another state to introduce new seat belt laws in 1985, not wearing a seat belt was considered a petty offence when first introduced, punishable with a fine of up to $25 (almost 50 adjusting for inflation). While it meant they often avoided a fine, they were not wearing the belt for its intended purpose. Its the sort of reasoning you might expect from protestors who refuse to wear masks when out in public during the pandemic. @Garebo Remind me to never offer you a ride in my vehicle. I wear them, but I dont think people should be punished for not wearing them, if they so choose. at the same time. It is an insult to our freedom. Instead, at the close of the State's case in each trial, he moved to have the citation dismissed and the mandatory seat belt law declared unconstitutional as (1) violating his rights to privacy and equal protection and (2) exceeding the scope of the state's police power under both the federal and Iowa constitutions. Even with the smallest forces applied to ones body in normal driving if one was driving with feet on the floor and hands at 10 and 2 our bodies are still shifted around. Now take a hand off the wheel, move the non-braking foot around to where ever and put a cell, burger or cig in the persons hand and a seat belt gives you that extra bit of restraint. The statute even went one step further by stating that violating the seat belt law could not be considered negligence, which meant insurers would still have to pay out if a driver had injured themselves while not wearing one. So, what is the law say in CA, if a law enforcement person notices you driving while on the phone, he can pull you over and cite you with a traffic violation with a hefty fine-sorry I am too lazy to go look into it? The problem with cell phones isnt the number of hands on the wheel, but the brains focus. That saidit does make every state around us have a nice lucrative income where they can just pick cars off as they come across the border and ticket them for not wearing seatbelts. A case can be made for many third party effects and social costs of accidents, so this matter involves more than a mere question of the individual right of privacy. Also, the very law the automakers worked for, supposedly to save peoples lives, turned on them. A person involved in a car accident who was not using a seat belt may be liable for damages far greater than if they had been using a seat belt. Those seats get to be pretty complex (and expensive) though I have heard that research shows that they actually endanger children over part of the legally required age range. But again, critics of the laws often didnt dispute that seat belts saved lives, as many (though not all) opponents of vaccination standards dont dispute the efficacy of the vaccines. Its also resentment about being told what to do by authorities. Primary enforcement laws make a difference. Dingledy argued that the law uses vague language that refers to federal motor vehicle safety standards. Not much different then the health insurance; now, the government is increasingly controlling what we can eat and drink and there quest to discredit the nutritional supplement industry is persistant, on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry. U.S. seat belt use laws may be subject to primary enforcement or secondary enforcement. I see your point. @Zaku difference being that you can hang up or drop the phone. I shouldn't be forced to protect myself in a moving vehicle Everywhere else in this world, the individual is subservient to government. I see the benefit in wearing one so I do wear one. HISTORY reviews and updates its content regularly to ensure it is complete and accurate. Rule of law comes into play. Brian ONeill, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, gave a speech in December 1988 in which he excoriated one of the prominent voices against seat belt laws a radio talk-show host. If a driver commits a primary violation (e.g., for speeding) they may additionally be charged for not wearing a seat belt. The issue was what the government could and couldnt tell people to do. Many Americans understand the lifesaving value of the seat belt - the national use rate was at 91.6% in 2022. In a society that wishes to remain free, each individual must be left free to act foolishly.. New York was the first US state to introduce a law requiring the use of seat belts in the front seats of cars on 1 January 1985, a couple of years after the UK, Canada, France and Germany. by Davi Ottenheimer on September 15, 2021 Here's a flashback from Canadian news. 5 Is the seat belt law unconstitutional? It saves lives, and sometimes people are plan stupid and dont follow laws. Separately, Penal Code 1465.8 requires an imposition of an additional fee of $40 for court security on every conviction for a criminal offense, including a traffic offense, except parking offenses as defined in Penal Code 1463. @Phobia, its liberty, not anarchy. Cigarettes, alcohol, and fast food have VERY strong lobbyist. Secondary enforcement seat belt laws require law enforcement officers to have some other reason for stopping a vehicle before citing a driver or passenger for not using a seat belt. The fight then was the fight now: To what extent can or should the government trade off individual decision-making for the broader benefit of the community? Instead, police officers publicly announced they would issue the fine only if there were other offences worthy of pulling the motorist over. Back in the 1950s, before the seatbelt law, we didnt have to have wars to keep the population down. Your own health is NOT your own right if its not also your own responsibility. The interviewees were British drivers who admitted to not wearing their seat belts while in cars in 2008, despite it being a legal requirement in the UK to wear one in the front seat of a vehicle since 1983 and in the back seat since 1991. A longtime contributor to HowStuffWorks, Dave has also been published in The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and Newsweek. Thats a good thing. This legislation is done for economic reasons and not to protect us, but then again it doesnt really matter. Not one penny of that money has ever prevented even a single traffic accident, the real cause of highway fatalities. Car manufacturers, insurance companies, law enforcement, politicians and drivers all had vested interests in seat belt laws. The benefit of an airbag is that it is passive its there ready to save your life. You want to have a greater risk of dying? @willbrawn I dont think thats what he meant. It is essential to apply the principle of original intent, or the "original" meaning of the words and phases of the time. And there is an incentive to wear seat belts, two of them, actually. Thus, not using a seatbelt can cause injury and death to others, not just yourself. For the most part no one really cares. If anyone read my link, mandating seatbelt use by back seat passengers at any rate saves the lives of people in the front seat. If there is a law against not wearing a seat belt, maybe there should be a law for wearing life vests while in boats. Seat belt use was low (between 11% and 14%) in the late 1970s and early 1980s, before occupants were required to use seat belts. was putting pressure on states to either pass a seat belt law or be excluded from possible locations for a multibillion-dollar Saturn plant. Why, for instance, does there seem to be differences between the adoption of the rules in different countries? Just think eventually we wont be able to enjoy those delicious Trans Fats-I dont know what I will do with out them. In that 1985 report from the Associated Press, a spokesman for a pro-seat-belt-law coalition derided the libertarian folks who were offering the most opposition. Proponents of the laws focused on the same two points Brody had elevated: seat belts save lives and reduce costs both to governments and to others whose insurance premiums are driven higher. And why are some people prepared to challenge a health measure that will surely save lives? He was wearing a prosthetic cone on his head, with a small motorcycle helmet on top. Government has plenty to do beside these personal intrusions. [3][5], Seat belt use laws often do not themselves apply to children. On this occasion, however, the court ruled against the motorists who brought the case. I just suggest finding better selection criteria for picking your battles. But before any of those changes could be made, Ronald Reagan won the presidency on a promise of deregulation, especially of the automotive industry.