Cons of Mandatory Seatbelt Laws

Cons of Mandatory Seatbelt Laws

Mandatory seatbelt laws require the installation of seatbelts to motor vehicles and the wearing of seatbelts by the people occupying the motor vehicle. Research by road safety authorities indicates that seatbelt laws have reduced the number of deaths in road accidents. Studies of accident impacts suggest that the rates of fatality among motor vehicle occupants are reduced by 30% to 50%. However, the mandatory seatbelt laws have been opposed by several groups and individuals who claim that the rules requiring the wearing of seatbelts infringe individual freedom and liberty. The number of people saved by wearing belts is overrated, and they fail to account for additional risks imposed on other road users. Mandatory seatbelt laws infringe on the rights of road users and are against libertarian principles.

Mandatory seatbelt laws violate the road users’ right to personal freedom, and they take away the liberty to decide whether or not to wear seatbelts. Several groups and individuals who oppose the enforcement of mandatory seatbelt laws argue that the laws violate libertarian principles. Compulsory seatbelt laws are coercive, and they violate the right to self-control and bodily privacy (Lichtenberg, 2016). The government also takes away the road users’ freedom to decide whether or not they should buckle up. An average driver is able to make safety decisions, and therefore, the decision to wear seatbelts should be left to drivers rather than the government predetermining their choices.

Some people argue that wearing seatbelts does increase the risks of getting multiple cuts, bruises, and internal injuries in case of an accident. The passengers who wear their seatbelts too loosely are likely to be more injured. Many people say that they would have had fewer injuries if they could not be wearing seatbelts. Although seatbelts help save lives, they may result in injury to abdominal viscera, vascular structures, bony skeleton, and the neck. Wearing of the seatbelt may also cause severe damage to the diaphragm, tear the colon and the lumbar vertebrae, or cause harm to other abdominal areas and the chest.

Severe injuries can occur due to deceleration from very high speed. The head of the passenger continues to move forward while the other parts of the body are restrained; therefore, the effect can potentially cause paralyzing injuries. Enforcement of mandatory seatbelt laws limits the individuals’ liberty to get out of the motor vehicle in case of an accident. Wearing seatbelts may restrain one from getting out of the vehicle in case the car is submerged, or there is a fire (Lichtenberg, 2016). Making the wearing of seatbelt a mandatory for all motor vehicle occupants narrows one’s ability to save their lives during an accident.

Enforcement of mandatory seatbelt laws could encourage greater risk-taking by drivers. Compelling an individual to protect themselves against the consequences of hazardous driving encourages reckless driving. When the risk of death and injury from a car accident is minimized, drivers might respond by reducing the safety measures and precautions they are supposed to take against car accidents. Encouraging hazardous driving could result in more severe accidents and consequently mitigate or reduce the effectiveness of seatbelts (Holdorf, 2002). A study indicates that drivers opt to wear seatbelts because seatbelts enable them to adopt higher driving speeds. Enforcement of mandatory seatbelt laws, therefore, fails to meet its mandated purpose; thus, there is no point of coercing people into wearing them.

The passing and enforcement of mandatory seatbelt laws require millions of dollars. Compulsory seatbelt laws impose a terrible financial burden on taxpayers. Wearing seatbelts can be an independent decision of drivers, and the government does not need to spend extra resources to enforce mandatory seatbelt laws. Such resources wasted on enforcing the law should, therefore, utilized in better programs. Making the installation of seatbelt a mandatory also increases the price of motor vehicles drastically. Thus, the financial burden to the consumers is further elevated.

Mandatory seatbelt laws also infringe on an individual’s rights guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the constitution. The Amendments prohibit the unwarranted intrusion of the personal lives of citizens by the government. By enforcing mandatory installation and wearing seatbelts, the government violates the rights of an individual to determine their healthcare standards (Holdorf, 2002). People should not just accept the laws that take away their freedom simply because the legislators claim that they pass the laws for the good of the citizens.

The wearing of seatbelts does not have one accurate outcome since people have been severely injured or even killed during a car crash because they were wearing seatbelts. Others have been saved from motor vehicle accidents because they did not use a seatbelt. The chances of being saved by a seatbelt during an accident are merely by chance. The government thus gambles with the probability that some lives may be saved by enforcing mandatory seatbelt legislation (Harper & Strumpf, 2017). Legislators have no authority to take chances with people’s lives simply because they hope some people may be saved in some accidents by chance.

Forcing people to wear seatbelts infringes their right to refuse any healthcare recommendation. In a free society, there is no non-psychiatric doctor who would coerce one to take drugs, have a surgery, use a medical device, or other medical treatments without consent from the person.  The government, however, forces motorists to use a seatbelt, which is a medical device, without their consent and will. The government uses punishments and threats of punishment such as fines and jail terms to coerce individuals to wear seatbelts. Therefore, enforcing mandatory seatbelt laws violates people’s right to refuse any medical recommendation.

The mandatory seatbelt legislation is an oppressive money generator rather than serving the purpose of keeping individuals safe. The government makes the installation and wearing seatbelts compulsory for collecting and supplementing revenues. For the state to qualify for federal highway funding, motorists are blackmailed into compliance through fines and other legal penalties. The mandatory seatbelt rules are enacted so that the states do not lose federal highway funding. Rather than serving the intended purpose, the law, therefore, becomes a money-making tool.

In conclusion, mandatory seatbelt laws require the installation of seatbelts to motor vehicles and the wearing of seatbelts by the people occupying the motor vehicle. Compulsory seatbelt laws violate the rights of road users to make personal decisions about their healthcare standards. The enforcement of mandatory seatbelt law also infringes people’s rights provided for by the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the constitution. Mandatory seatbelt laws are also a money-generating tool for the government. Forcing people to use seatbelts violates their freedom to make personal safety decisions. The passing and enforcement of the mandatory seatbelt legislation require a lot of resources like money and time, thus imposing a big financial burden on taxpayers.

References

Harper, S., & Strumpf, E. C. (2017). Primary enforcement of mandatory seat belt laws and motor vehicle crash deaths. American journal of preventive medicine, 53(2), 176-183.

Holdorf, J. (September 1, 2002). The Fraud of Seat-Belt Laws: Seat-Belt Laws Infringe a Person’s Constitutional Rights. Retrieved from https://fee.org/articles/the-fraud-of-seat-belt-laws/

Lichtenberg, J. (2016). For your good: Informing, nudging, coercing. Geo. JL & Pub. Pol’y, 14, 663.