All states have laws requiring proper restraint of children in cars, and many states (Alabama, California, Hawaii etc...) have laws that require adults to wear seat belts. In the case of the children these laws are easily justifiable. A child is not considered to have the life experience nor judgment required to take care of themselves or others. Consequently some outside influence must help them by enforcing certain safe behaviors. Most of the time a parent is the one who is entrusted with this task. However, just as there are laws preventing bad parenting and child abuse, laws enforce child seat belt usage. Considering that we have laws prohibiting the beating of children in most states, it makes sense that we should also prevent parents from allowing their children to ride without seat belts.
It's with adults that the problem becomes less clear. It's not the case that we usually prevent adults from participating in self-destructive activities. Most laws are enacted to prevent people from harming others via reckless or irresponsible acts. This is the case with most traffic laws. People cannot drive drunk because they pose too much of a danger to others on the road or sidewalk. People cannot drive in unsafe cars because they might lose control of the vehicle. The line becomes fuzzy with safety devices.
It makes sense that cars should all come with safety devices such as airbags and seat belts; individuals need to be given the option to use them. The laws become less clear when they enforce mandatory usage of these devices. As discussed above, children often need guidance in decision making. But since we consider adults to be independent individuals capable of making their own decisions, how do we justify these laws? There is no way that wearing a seat belt makes a collision safer for other drivers on the road. It is entirely for the benefit of the individual wearing the belt. Are we then saying: "You're too stupid to make your own decision about wearing the belt, so we'll make it for you."? This seems to violate our basic tenant of individual liberties.
In conclusion, it does seem stupid to not wear a seat belt. The statistics showing how much safer one is when wearing them speak for themselves. So is there any sense in judging individuals who choose not to use the belt indeed too stupid to make that decision? In fact, via Rawls' reasoning, these people would not be considered rational individuals capable of entering the OP. This is an interesting issue, as seat belt laws represent a fairly unique type of law, namely one that forces us to act in our own interest, rather than trusting us to do it ourselves.
http://www.ok.gov/ohso/documents/NOPUS%202008%20SB%20Use.pdf
http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/seatbelt_laws.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
You present an interesting argument with regards to governments dictating individual behavior. It would seem that, since seatbelt use affects no one but the driver in question, laws regulating the use of such safety mechanisms have no basis in public reasoning. Forcing individuals to use seatbelts when they pose no threat to anyone but themselves amounts to an encroachment of personal liberties in a very subtle manner.
However, a government would be remiss to assume that its citizens always act in accordance with right judgment. Indeed, because a government can never be sure that its citizens will do what is rational, it must protect against careless behavior. Liberties are by no means absolute, and when the greater good of insuring individual livelihoods are at stake, the personal choice to wear or not wear a seatbelt is sublimated to secondary status.
Consider also the importance such a law has for liability claims. An individual who, having refused to wear a seatbelt, is injured in an accident has no one to blame but himself. In the largely drawn out and proliferated legal system of the modern day, however, that individual may seek compensation through a variety of loopholes in legal codes. Mandatory seatbelt usage prevents such unjust compensation from taking place, sending the right message to citizens: buckle up, or face the consequences.
Dr. Bob, I find your choice of topic interesting, if a little short sighted. Yes, the government does enforce laws that keep its citizens alive, even if it means protecting them from themselves. Does this sound at all familiar? There seem to be interesting parallels between this question and the debate on assisted suicide, but although they are similar, there are key differences.
On the surface, both the seatbelt law and the law forbidding suicide are mean to do the same thing - protect people from themselves. The differences lie in the intention of the person to whom the law applies: while people who kill themselves wish to die (theoretically at least), people who die from not wearing a seatbelt presumably do not.
When asked my personal opinions about these issues, I have conflicting reactions. Yes, people should be required to wear seatbelts, but no, it should not be illegal for people who's circumstances make death the preferable option to life to commit suicide.
So what are the intentions of these laws? The law requiring seatbelts seems to be a law against nothing other than stupidity, while the law prohibiting suicide is meant to keep people from carrying out a choice.
The truth is, however, that while some victims of suicide are prepared for and aware of the true consequences of what they are doing (these people make up the majority of the assisted suicide debate), many people attempt suicide only to regret their actions if they survive. In essence, the two laws are meant to do the same thing: guard against stupid mistakes.
I think the issue of seat belts has more effects than that of personal choice and the justice to choose for oneself. In mandating that adults wear seatbelts, speed limits have simultaneously increased in the United States. Safety standards and speed limits go hand in hand. As the safety of a vehicle increases, so do the speed limits. Before the 1970's there were no seat belt laws, and in fact, many automobile makers did not even have seat belts in their cars. After the government stipulated that American automobiles have seat belts, speed limits began to increase on American roads. I guess we could say that mandating to wear seat belts will also allow people to drive faster. Most people would appreciate this mandate as they could legally get from place to place faster. There are opportunity costs that people must face with driving faster, wear a seat belt or die harder. The government is just trying to maintain the safety of driving without seatbelts at slower speeds.
Also, another argument that can be presented is that increasing speeds and mandating seat belt usage also protects the interests of those people who do feel safer wearing them. As speed limits increased in the 1970's the government made the automobile producers put seat belts in their cars in order to protect the people who feel that seatbelts keep them safer when driving at faster speeds.
I agree that seatbelt regulations for adults pose more ambiguous questions of justice, including whether or not a government has the prerogative to make decisions for an individual when it involves their own interests and does not affect the safety of others in any way. However from a practical examination of the issue, many adults remain uneducated about the death statistics and risks of not wearing a seatbelt so demanding the usage of seat belts is a matter of insurance against potential for fatality. The law may infringe on an individual's right to rational and free thought, but it does not directly cause any harm or objectionable conditions besides the minor time inconvenience of buckling the strap. Such an objection seems petty when compared to the potential alternatives of death or serious injury, and a simple law that so effectively eliminates this potential cannot be considered as an unnecessary violation of individual freedom. Laws banning the use of illegal drugs are not established solely because of the increased crime and community danger associated with the drugs; the unhealthy and life-threatening effects of a drug on its user is enough to justify an intervention by our current legislation regarding personal decisions of safety.
Post a Comment