Skip to main content

I Want to Wear My Seat Belt, Thank You!


I think it's a very good idea for people to wear their seat belts while driving. But I'm not sure how it is the government's business to require me to wear my seat belt. Current Utah law requires those under the age of 19 to do so. Pending legislation would require everyone to wear a seat belt. Why should such a common-sense driving accoutrement be a legal requirement?

Current Utah law requires those aged 18 and younger to wear a seat belt; if a police officer sees someone in this age category not wearing a seat belt, they can issue a citation on the spot. For those older than age 18, another violation must occur before a citation can be issued for failure to wear a seat belt. That may be about to change if Democrat Senator Pat Jones' bill passes the Utah legislature.

Why?

Why is government in the business of requiring you to wear your seat belt? In their response to Governor Huntsman's State of the State address, Democrats expressed that their main concern is for the welfare of the individual. I'm not sure how taking away the individual's choice increases his welfare.

Senator Jones' bill seems to have gained more support simply because it was amended to expire in 2010. So now it becomes an experiment not to see whether it constitutes good government, but how many lives it supposedly saves. We'll never really know, and besides, that's not the point. While we're at it, why don't we outlaw skydiving, hang gliding, and motor vehicle racing?

I wear my seat belt almost everywhere I go. The only time I don't is maybe when I'm going across town to run an errand. Ask my kids how many creative ways I have developed to harp on them, especially the younger ones, to put on their seat belts. I agree with the mantra--seat belts save lives. It's just that government doesn't have any business getting into my car with me.

It's pretty obvious that wearing my seat belt is the safer thing to do. I don't need government to tell me that. I don't need them to require me to do it either.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Scott Hinrichs1/22/2007 09:59:00 AM

    I don't move my vehicle until everyone is buckled up. That's my personal rule. Period.

    It burns my toast to see people driving around with their kids bee-bopping around the inside of the vehicle unrestrained (breaking current laws). My wife used to be an insurance adjustor. She has seen the results of failure to wear seatbelts, and it ain't pretty.

    I am still unsure about making seatbelt violations a primary offense. Why don't we outlaw smoking and drinking while we're at it? Should I be forcing my neighbor to wear his seatbelt, or should I educate him and let him deal with the consequenses of his choices? I'm not sure that's the proper role of government to force people to wear seatbelts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Frank Staheli1/22/2007 10:55:00 AM

    I like your point about education. I think it's the best solution.

    I think we (especially those in jobs like your wife's) should educate them and if they still want to be 'stupid', then that's their business.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

School Vouchers: "The Bramble Memo"

$429 million? What? Where? The legislative fiscal analyst for the State of Utah calculated the costs to the public schools over the next 13 years if school vouchers are implemented. It said the costs would be $5.5M in the first year, and $71M in the 13th year. Suddenly, the number I have started seeing thrown around was $429 million, the total costs for vouchers over 13 years. Where did that number come from? Enter the mysterious "Bramble Memo". In the past few days several of us (Jeremy, Utah Taxpayer, Craig, Sara, Urban Koda, Jesse, and me) have (sometimes?) enjoyed a lively discussion about school vouchers in Utah . Jeremy clarified to me the costs of the venture by linking to a copy of the Utah Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Impartial Analysis (LFA) of the costs of Vouchers , found on "The Senate Site". In my previous voucher article, I quoted some of Lavar Webb's article from last Sunday's Deseret News, wherein he stated that those total costs ...
66 comments
Read more

Why Do Liberals Coddle the Radical Islamic Monster?

Many liberals and progressives in the United States and elsewhere support a radical Islamic fundamentalist movement which, if it came to power, would quickly wipe out their liberal progressive ideology. Why then, do so many liberals coddle the monster that would destroy them? The Answer lies in their long-stemmed hatred of Western liberty and free markets. Dick Morris' new revelation of Hillary Clinton's ties to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism provides an excellent backdrop for me to ask the question that Greg Allen of The Right Balance has been asking for quite some time, to wit: If many liberals stand for free sexuality, homosexuality, the use of drugs, binge drinking, and other mindless expressions of individuality, why do so many of them also look the other way when it comes to Islamic fundamentalism? Don't they know that Iran has put to death as many as 4,000 homosexuals? Don't they know that if Islamists come to power they will not only make sexual perversi...
52 comments
Read more

The Inhumanity of Bob Lonsberry: Waterboarding, Concentration Camps, and the the Bataan Death March

KNRS 570 radio talk show host Bob Lonsberry advocated waterboarding and other forms of torture during his show on April 21, 2009. More grotesquely, he was beaming with pride about his advocacy campaign. It's difficult to imagine then, that, by the same rationale, had Lonsberry been a German at the time of Hitler, or a Japanese during the Bataan Death March, that he would not have advocated torture of Jews in the concentration camps or the bayoneting and shooting of American soldiers on the Bataan trail. Torture, Torture, Everywhere! Nearly 80,000 American soldiers were captured by the Japanese in the To contemplate a discussion about whether or not torture is legal or whether it even works, it is first required to come to the conclusion that 'I am a child of God, but my adversary is a monkey'. Phillipines in 1942 and forced to march with no food and very little water for six days. If a man stumbled, if he didn't respond quickly to a command, or if he tried to get wat...
50 comments
Read more