Alternative Press

(commentary & news)
"Those who would sacrifice essential freedom for a little temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety," said Benjamin Franklin. Yet around Western New York, police are conducting seatbelt roadblocks. It is part ofa nationwide program where some 7,000 police agencies are receiving federal grants and pledging
zero tolerance for the non-essential freedom exercised by the seatbelt scofflaw.
Inmost states police are looking for unbelted children; every state has a "primary enforcement" law for children, but most states require another violation before police have probable cause to arrest and issue a summons for adult seatbelt infractions. New York is one of few that make seatbelt violations an adult "primary enforcement" offense.

In Florida, an adult primary enforcement bill failed to pass after much debate, despite DOT claims that seat-belt use would rise by 15 percent and the fact that National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that it would save 158 lives and 4,109 injuries annually in Florida. Health care experts also claimed that hospital care costs are 50 percent higher for unbelted motorists
forcing consumers to pay higher insurance premiums.

Nevertheless, Florida .lawmakers said adults have the right to decide whether to use seat belts. The Orlando Sentinel disagreed. "Using that logic," they editorialized, "Drug use, too, is a matter of personal preference. If people want to risk killing themselves with drugs why not?" That question is, if unwittingly, applicable to legal drugs: If all US motorists wore seatbelts 9,500 lives could be saved
annually. Yet 450,000 Americans die of tobacco use, and more than 125,000 from alcohol. If seatbelts and risky drugs are analogous then banning alcohol and tobacco would be the higher priority.
Other safety concepts are also stirring debate:
** Besides roadblocks, police deploy roaming "Seatbelt" patrol cars, meaning seatbelt laws may, in some instances, be an excuse for racial profiling.
** California recently sought mandatory road tests for drivers over age seventy-five, since this segment of the population has higher .accident rates.
Although AARP lobbyists killed the bill, claiming ageism, other states are planning similar legislation.

**The city of Brooklyn, Ohio, first to pass a seatbelt law, (1966) became the first to enact the "Mobile Telephone" law banning phone use while driving (1999).
Several states are considering similar laws.

**Several municipalities are considering mandating safety helmets for adult bicyclists. Thus, applying the logic of seatbelt laws — saving lives, reducing injuries, and saving consumers' money— government may enact many new laws to protect its citizens. Supporters of seatbelts laws, 'however, may actually be eschewing logic in favor of paternalistic and do-good emotionalism. The following list of hypothetical laws may prove the point. Each is based upon the same logic propounded by seatbelt enforcement advocates:

** Motorists could be required to wear crash helmets; keep Stereos low (insuring sirens and horns are heard) and, with a "two-hands on the wheel" law, driving while eating abstain from.

** Motorcycles, probably more dangerous (per mile driven) than automobiles with or without a seatbelt, would be banned.

** The World Health Organization expects 44,000 people to be newly infected with HIV in North America in 1999. The consequences of "unsafe" sex suggest primary enforcement.

** People risk killing themselves with unhealthy food; gluttony causes heart illness: Government may legislate "safe" diets.

** George Orwell's "1984" government, using primary enforcement, mandated morning exercise. Consumers were spared higher costs.

** Using the same ankle monitors, currently tracking felons sentenced to home arrest, government could identify potential criminals by age, race, and gender, then require them to "buckleup'' with ankle monitors.

** In Chicago, they call warrant-less police searches through minority neighborhoods "sweeps." A nationwide sweep would reduce illegal possession of dangerous weapons and drugs.

** Georgia law requires drivers' fingerprints on licenses. Universal fingerprinting will allow government to review employment applications, helping find dangerous fugitives.

** On Grant Street, in Buffalo, NY, police video cameras, installed on traffic lights, monitor the street. Government could similarly monitor all outdoor areas - including your door step.

** A federal camera inside the home will deter crime. Of course, most seatbelt supporters would balk at these absurd proposals. Yet, the emotional outcry for seatbelt enforcement, effectually: "Have you witnessed the mangled bodies of motorists who didn't wear seatbelts?"is logically insufficient. Why should the seatbelt fanatic alone decide safety-above- freedom issues? The tobacco abolitionist might equally ask: "Have you seen x-rays of the cancerous lungs of a long term tobacco smoker?"
The argument then opposing seatbelt coercion is not about the efficacy of seatbelts, but the role of government. The next time you put on a seatbelt ask yourself: Am I moving the hands that buckle because it is prudent and voluntary, or am I being coerced as an automaton?
Should citizens be micro-managed for their personal safety? Dowe need more laws, or more brains?

See you at the next roadblock.