Mandating Seat Belt Usage vs. Freedom of Choice
SOC120: Introduction to Ethics and Social Responsibilities
1
How do you feel when you are told what you will or will not do? You may be told that it is for your own good, but who has the right to decide what is or is not good for you? After all who knows you better than you do? This brings me to the topic of my discussion. Even though there are some statistics that may show a lower rate of injury or death if you wear a seat belt when in an automobile accident, I do not feel that the government has the right to make wearing a seat belt mandatory for adults because by making seat belts mandatory it takes away from our right to freedom of choice, and wearing a seat belt does not eliminate the risk of injury or death as people have been injured and/or killed due to wearing a seat belt
Current seat belt law originated from federal legislation in the 1960s that made it mandatory for all automobile manufacturers to include seat belts in their vehicles as a standard feature. Originally, the purpose of a seat belt was not to protect the occupants in the case of a crash, but rather to physically keep them in the vehicle, as driving was bumpy business.
However, in today’s times, mandatory use of a seat belt falls under various states purview. Each state implements its own laws regarding enforcement of seat belt use. Forty-nine states have adult seat belt laws as of 2009. New York was the first state to pass seat belt laws in 1984 and other states followed suit. In 1994, North Dakota became the last state to pass such a law. Currently, New Hampshire is the only state that does not mandate seat belt use for adults (Sefcik, L, 2010).
This issue touches on et...
... middle of paper ...
...ults because the bill of rights guarantees each of us the right to the freedom to care for one’s health and person, and freedom from bodily restraints or compulsions. The constitution, after all, was written for a reason. It was to protect our freedoms and rights in individual matters of choice, and to prevent the tyranny of others in dictating those highly personal choices, and to prevent our leadership from unduly legislating excessive societal oppressions. Is this not what the passage of the seat belt law has done?
References
Sefcik, Lisa, 2011, Seat Belt Law History, eHow.com, Retrieved April 7, 2011 From:
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5008257_seat-belt-law-history.html
Mosser, Kurt (2010). Ethics and Social Responsibilities. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Retrieved
From: https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUSOC120.10.2
This article shows both sides of the “Texting While Driving “debate. The article talks about how banning texting while driving could be a good thing. It states that countless of fatal car crashes have been caused by texting motorists. It also gives information on why banning texting while driving could be a bad thing mainly because it is a law that is hard to enforce. This article does a very good job of portraying both views. It is chock full of facts, quotes and studies that support each argument.
In order to operate a motor vehicle, you must be 16, by this age the driver should be responsible enough to make right decisions. Yet drivers make poor decisions, they do not take into consideration the bans and law prohibiting them to text behind the wheel. In 2009, Car and Driver preformed an experiment showing that texting while driving is more dangerous than being intoxicated behind the wheel. Texting bans have been proven to be lasting only a short time. People will react to a ban, but soon after will fall right back to their habits behind the wheel.
It has been determined by the Supreme Court that it is proper to arrest someone for a violation of a seat belt law if it has been violated in the presence of an officer. All 50 states and the District of Columbia have statutes that permit warrantless misdemeanor arrests by at least some peace officers without requiring any breach of the peace. Because The “Click it or Ticket” program in North Carolina has served as a model for the nation and the Presidential Initiative for Increasing safety belt use Nationwide highly recommends that other communities adopt this program it appears as though safety belt laws will continue to exist for years to come.
An enormous division currently exists between the people who believe that automobile safety should be an option and those that feel it must be a requirement. The federal government feels the morally obligated to create the safest driving environment possible. On the other end of the spectrum, opinions exist that the average driver has ability to make the choice of safety on their own. Editorials, political assemblies, debates, and conversations have arrived on the concept of click it or ticket. This idea refers to ticketing any motor vehicle driver and passenger that is not fastened by a seat belt. Arguments have been made for both sides, and have been reviewed in multiple states.
instituted to protect drivers on the road. With these laws come lawbreakers who put their
Many people may choose not to wear a seatbelt because they don’t understand how and why they work. To begin with seatbelts are the first line of defense one has against an injury in a crash.
... which fits into the discussion is the law of wearing a seatbelt. Not wearing a seatbelt while in a car is a good way of possibly causing harm to yourself. And according to the Harm Principle this should be allowed because you, as the person in the car, are deciding if you are going to put on your seatbelt. If the car were to crash it would have been your decision to not wear the seatbelt, so how can this be a government law? Putting or not putting on a seatbelt should be your decision because technically you are not causing harm to others, just possibly to yourself. If putting on a seatbelt is a law, why is a law against suicide not established, is it not basically the same theory. Allowing people to cause harm to themselves even if allowed by the Harm Principle does not only hurt the person doing the harm but also others around him, even if it is unintentionally.
Imagine a scenario where your child, sibling, or parent was in one of those accidents, consider the possibility that you were in one? Would a 60 dollar ticket make you stop using your phone? If a cop can't catch us texting while driving because it's still legal to use our phones in other ways will this problem ever stop? 74% of drivers support a ban on hand-held cell phone use. So why has Kansas not made a law on hand-held cell phone use yet? The state of Kansas does not do enough to prevent distracted driving. Kansas has only one law against texting and driving, there are no other laws preventing the use of cell phones. Cell phones are not the only distraction in the car, still they account for 75% of distracted driving crashes. Kansas may not be doing anything about these deaths due to distracted driving, but you can. NHTSA is an administration against distracted driving, according to their website The state of Kansas does not do enough to prevent distracted driving. They only have one law against texting and driving, there are no other laws preventing the use of cell phones. If you feel strongly about distracted driving, be a voice in your community by supporting local laws, speaking out at community meetings, and highlighting the dangers of distracted driving on social media and in your local
2 Rinaldi’s main point is that, “Local governments are far superior to state governments in their ability to communicate with, aggregate feedback from and respond to issues raised by local constituents in areas like public education, zoning, fire codes and traffic regulations. . However, while local government is often best at implementing policy, it poses a bigger risk of enacting laws that infringe on individual rights.” Considering what learned about local government, I do not believe it hypocritical that state governments impose their will on policies. I, in fact, believe it to be necessary. As State Representative Rinaldi pointed out, while many municipalities in Texas may not ban the texting and driving behavior, a state-wide ban might be more effective, easier to follow, and safer for the entire Texan population. This would overrule the decision of certain local government, but it would be, in my opinion, a great win for the entire state of Texas and for all its
We have all heard the excuses before, “do I have to wear it? It isn’t like it’s going to protect me,” “it’s uncomfortable, I’m only going around the corner,” or “I’d rather be thrown out of the vehicle than to be stuck in a seat belt.” No matter how good of a driver you are, or you think you might be, there are always situations that are beyond your control. Such as, bad weather, drunk drivers, and road conditions. Sometimes, seat belts can be a life or death in an automobile accident. Not only is wearing your seat belt every time you get in a vehicle, but it is required by law in 49 states, with the exception of New Hampshire. Although seat belts are known to lock up and wrinkle your clothes, I believe that wearing your seat belt is beneficial because every fourteen seconds someone is injured in a traffic crash. Seat belts are not only known for holding you in place during a collision, but more importantly the are known to save the lives of the occupants in the vehicle.
Seatbelt is a very important component when we all drive a car or other vehicle. The main purpose of seat belts is to provide greater safety to the driver when driving car but at the moment, people do not care about the importance of wearing seatbelt.
Seatbelts have been around since the 1950s and have proven to save lives over the years. The teenage stigma is that they do not need to wear one because they will be fine. After thousands of accidents where the occupants did not wear their seatbelt, the Supreme Court decided to pass some laws. “In 1972, the agency requires dull passive restraints for front seat occupants” (Supreme Court). The agency that the Supreme Court is referring to is the Department of Transportation. This law is a staple in automobile safety and sets a level of precedents for future laws. After this law was passed, the amount of fatalities from traffic incident relating to seat belts usage had dropped. The Supreme Court did not stop there, they continued to add more laws. “...new motor vehicles produced after September 1982 will be equipped with passive restraints to protect the safety of the occupants of the vehicle in the event of a collision” (Supreme Court). Now all new motor vehicles must have a form of passive restraint added to their vehicles before they can sell them to the public. The government hoped to protect more lives of young drivers who did not insist on wearing seat belts by making them mandatory and being enforced by police officers. Since 1972, hundreds of thousands of teenage lives have been saved with this simple safety
We have all heard the excuses before, "It's uncomfortable, I'm only going around the corner", I'd rather be thrown out of a car than be stuck in a seatbelt," and my favorite, "I'm a good driver I don't need to wear one." Well you may be a good driver but there are situations beyond your control such as bad weather, road conditions and not to mention other drivers that can affect your safety. Seat belts can mean the difference between life and death in an auto accident. Wearing a seat belt every time you enter a vehicle is not only the smart thing to do it is the right thing because it saves lives, it's the law and it will save you money.
The traumatic horror stories of teens texting and driving have scared families across the nation with the tragic results it can have. Savage elaborates on the rule stating, “ Maine and New Jersey recognize that young drivers talking on their cell phones are not focused on the road, which led the aforementioned states to outlaw it for drivers under the age of 21” (3). Being on your cell phone while driving should be outlawed for everyone because it is dangerous no matter what age you are. Therefore, I support states that put restrictions on cell phone usage while operating vehicles. Although, saying “under the age of 21” is referring to teens which implies that all teens text and drive or have the tendency to. We already know that not all teens text and drive based on what we know about Samantha. Therefore, I do believe that they are jumping on the bandwagon that thinks all teens text and
Several states have a law requiring anyone on a motorcycle to wear a helmet. However, some states have laws that