Buckle up for saaaaafety!

Let's say you prefer not to "buckle up" when you drive.

Yes, I know that seat belts save lives - and that your chances of being injured or even killed in the event you have an accident go up if you are not wearing a seat belt. But it's equally true that eating right and exercising regularly saves lives - and I'm guessing you'd prefer to decide for yourself what to eat and whether you'll hit the gym today.

Right?

Yet, we don't apply the same standard to the decision to buckle up - or not. Many states have laws on the books not only requiring that you wear your seatbelt - very much in the manner of a Big Momma scolding you about eating your broccoli - but also, increasingly, empowering police to pull you over for this omission.

Usually, it's couched in terms of "the chylllldrun" and demanded by so-called "safety moms."

Since it's probably a losing battle to fight this creeping nannyism head on, one must adopt guerilla tactics of evasion and obfuscation to assert one's right to make decisions about personal matters for oneself.

That's where Buckle Off! comes in.

Most states that have mandatory seatbelt laws also have exemptions to those laws for medical reasons. Some people, for physical or other reasons, cannot use seat belts - and thus, are eligible for an exemption based on medical necessity such as neuropathy and orthopedic problems.

For example, Washington's seat belt law contains the following provision:

"This section does not apply to an operator or passenger who possesses written verification from a licensed physician that the operator or passenger is unable to wear a safety belt for physical or medical reasons."

Buckle Off! (see www.buckleoff.com) is there to serve this need.

What happens is this: You fill out an online medical history/questionnaire and submit it for consideration by Dr. Bob - a licensed, board certified physician. If the good doctor determines that your need to drive unbuckled is medically necessary, he will issue you a certificate that so states - and which is "legal tender" in all states that have mandatory buckle-up laws. Keep the laminated certificate in the glovebox; if Johnny Law pulls you over for a seatbelt ticket, show it to him. That ought to be sufficient to end the transaction - but if the cop persists and issues you a ticket anyhow, go to court and  show the judge. He will have no choice but to throw out the ticket - because, after all, the law's the law.

The cost is $49.95 - not cheap, but less than the cost of a single seatbelt ticket. And if you routinely drive unbuckled, Dr. Bob might save you hundreds of dollars over the years - not to mention the satisfaction of having successfully evaded Big Momma's rules.

But is this the equivalent of the notorious catalytic converter "test pipes" that were once available in auto parts stores?

Not as I see it.

Disabling a vehicle's emissions controls results in pollution of the "commons" - the air we all must breathe. It's hard to argue that your right to pollute is being violated by laws that require your car to have intact/operational emissions equipment.

On the other hand, not wearing a seat belt may result in harm to you - assuming you have an accident; and assuming that accident is serious enough to cause injury; and - biggest assumption of all - assuming that the wearing of a seat belt would make a difference. But even if we assume you will be injured as a result of not buckling up, no one else is directly threatened by your actions.

Driving unbuckled might be foolish, it might be something you'd never do yourself - but that's beside the point. The relevant issue is - does the guy in the next lane's decision not to wear his seat belt harm (or even threaten to harm) me?

And clearly, the answer is - no.

Some will try to argue that "social costs" justify seat belt laws; meaning - if you get injured as a result of not wearing your seat belt, then others bear the cost in the form of higher medical costs/insurance premiums/taxpayer burdens and so on.

Perhaps.

But isn't the same true of other private lifestyle choices  - from what and how much we eat to whether we exercise or not to the recreational activities we partake of? Fat people have much higher lifetime health-related costs - borne by "society" - than athletic people. There is an absolute correlation between activity levels - and incidence of major illnesses such as heart disease and high blood pressure.

And so on, endlessly.

A line has to be drawn somewhere - or the alternative is a society in which every action or potential action taken by an individual may be checkmated by some tangential, hypothetical "harm" ginned up by an imaginative bureaucrat or busybody.

That line, it seems to me, is the one demarcating actions that present a clear threat to the lives or property or well-being of others. And by that reasonable standard, mandatory seat belt laws do not qualify.

So, here's to Dr. Bob - and his "prescription" for dealing with laws that have no business being enforced in the first place.

(Anyone interested in more can find me at www.ericpetersautos.com)

eric Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On the other hand, not wearing a seat belt may
> result in harm to you - assuming you have an
> accident; and assuming that accident is serious
> enough to cause injury; and - biggest assumption
> of all - assuming that the wearing of a seat belt
> would make a difference. But even if we assume you
> will be injured as a result of not buckling up, no
> one else is directly threatened by your actions.
>
> Driving unbuckled might be foolish, it might be
> something you'd never do yourself - but that's
> beside the point. The relevant issue is - does the
> guy in the next lane's decision not to wear his
> seat belt harm (or even threaten to harm) me?
>
> And clearly, the answer is - no.

Your failure to wear a seat belt may not cause immediate harm to the person in the lane next to you. However, it does cause indirect harm to society in the form of extremely expensive care for you in the event you are in an accident. You are very likely to be thrown from your vehicle and crushed. Your injuries are far more likely to be extensive and require life support. If you get your seat belt exemption certificate, it should also opt you out of receiving emergency care in the event of an accident if you were not wearing your seat belt. That's only fair.

What is your reason for not wanting to wear a seat belt?

I forgot to mention:

Operating a motor vehicle is the most dangerous thing you do on a regular basis. When you hit the ICU with fractures all over the place, internal damage, and brain swelling after you've been thrown from your car in an accident, you're going to cost way more in just a few days than the overweight person or the smoker will cost for most of their productive lives.

You see, emergency end of life care is the most expensive health care of all. We waste pots of money keeping dying people alive temporarily. We keep extremely premature babies with pneumonia and sepsis alive. We resuscitate Granny even though all her organs are failing and this is her second heart attack in a week. We keep incredibly sick and broken people alive when we should just let them go.

While you're on a ventilator, and doctors are scheduling emergency surgery to reduce the pressure on your brain, and nobody knows if you're going to wake up or not, you're running up immense bills. If your family is the kind who will weep and say "we want everything done", then your animated corpse will be kept on life support indefinitely... at somebody else's expense. Emergency end of life care is so expensive that NOBODY ever pays high enough insurance premiums to cover it, even if they paid for their insurance all their lives and never once saw a doctor until the very end.

So go ahead and get that phony seal belt exemption. Really give the middle finger to the "nanny state" and their interfering with your life. Then do the right thing and get yourself a legal "Do Not Resuscitate" order that covers what to do if your crushed and mangled body is found at the scene of a traffic accident.

That is all.

Sibyl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > You see, emergency end of life care is the most
> expensive health care of all. We waste pots of
> money keeping dying people alive temporarily. We
> keep extremely premature babies with pneumonia and
> sepsis alive. We resuscitate Granny even though
> all her organs are failing and this is her second
> heart attack in a week. We keep incredibly sick
> and broken people alive when we should just let
> them go.
>
> While you're on a ventilator, and doctors are
> scheduling emergency surgery to reduce the
> pressure on your brain, and nobody knows if you're
> going to wake up or not, you're running up immense
> bills. If your family is the kind who will weep
> and say "we want everything done", then your
> animated corpse will be kept on life support
> indefinitely... at somebody else's expense.
> Emergency end of life care is so expensive that
> NOBODY ever pays high enough insurance premiums to
> cover it, even if they paid for their insurance
> all their lives and never once saw a doctor until
> the very end.
>
> So go ahead and get that phony seal belt
> exemption. Really give the middle finger to the
> "nanny state" and their interfering with your
> life. Then do the right thing and get yourself a
> legal "Do Not Resuscitate" order that covers what
> to do if your crushed and mangled body is found at
> the scene of a traffic accident.
>
> That is all.


I totally agree, Sybil.

Make sure you carry your DNR everyplace you go, because it isn't any good to you if the EMT's don't know about it. Also, make sure you have an Advanced Directive on file at the hospital, naming your closest relative as the person who gets to decide if you live or die once the tube goes in. They'll really appreciate your trust in them.

Seriously. Don't do this. I know what happens when someone is pronounced braindead. You don't want to be that person. I've had to make the decision to pull the plug. Believe me, you don't want to put anyone in a position like that, especially for something as stupid as a seatbelt.

I'm sorry to hear you have had to pull the plug on somebody, sprogless.

I was once in a position to decide how my grandmother would die (lack of oxygen or organ failure after massive heart attack). I chose to take her off the high pressure breathing apparatus and let her oxygen saturation go down slowly. She was unconscious and on morphine, so I hope she had some beautiful dreams as her brain slowly starved.

We knew she was going to die, but the decisions still haunts me. Pulling the plug on somebody who is relatively stable but not assured to wake up would give me nightmares for the rest of my life. I'd always wonder, "what if..."

I apologize if I sounded extra harsh to Eric. Modern seat belts are so much more comfortable than the ones you could get in a 1960's Volvo. They can be relatively slack but still tighten in an instant and keep you inside the vehicle if it rolls or otherwise threatens to eject you. I can't fathom the kind of disorder that would be required in order to make wearing a seat belt more uncomfortable or risky than not wearing one. Some people are phobic about being trapped by the belt after an accident, so they carry seat belt cutters. Some people could be too obese for a belt, though I know a 500+ pound guy who buckles up regularly. Even the paraplegic woman I used to know would lock her wheelchair in place and buckle up when she drove her special van.

That's why I asked Eric's reason for not wishing to wear a belt. I can't imagine a condition that would make not wearing a seat belt seem sensible, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

I also wonder what disorder or ailment would warrant anyone freedom from a seatbelt. So people are going to be willing to pay $50 to have a lazy pass? Nice.

I know some people will also argue that, under certain circumstances, seatbelts can actually cause injury or death (i.e. the neck strap being at a bad angle and cutting the person's throat). And while these instances are few and far between, they feed the anti-seatbelt fire.

Normally, I wouldn't care about people Darwinizing themselves...if it would only be themselves who would be affected if their dumb asses got involved in an accident. Unfortunately, lots of others feel the brunt of someone's accident.

I hope this doesn't force the topic into a tangent, but does anyone know what the survival rate is for people who get put on life support for extended periods of time? I know it can be difficult to let a loved one pass when they're brain dead and paralyzed and unconscious, but still 'alive' a la machines, but is it really humane to keep someone alive like that? When I think of someone in such a condition on life support, I think of the Russian experiment involving keeping a severed dog head alive by machines and wonder how far of a cry the human recipients of life support are from being an experiment.

I am under the impression that unhealthy people live shorter lives that end faster and as a result would use fewer health care resources in the long run.

Still, it seems kind of late to be jumping on the anti-seatbelt bandwagon. Most states have had seat belt laws for at least a decade. Granted, it seems like an unwarranted intrusion to get stopped merely for not wearing a seatbelt, but it seems like a lot of work and expense to get a fake medical exemption to get out of something that will decrease your chances of being horribly injured in an accident.

"It truly is the one commonality that every designation of humans you can think of has, there's at least one asshole."
--Me

I do think that getting pulled over for not wearing a seat belt varies by state. Some states will add it as an extra fine to your ticket if they pull you over for something else, but won't pull a vehicle over purely for a seat belt violation.

I've been voluntarily wearing seat belts since long before the laws existed. When I was seven, my father took me to a demonstration of what happens when a car hits something at 10mph. You could sit in a small sled (buckled up, of course) and the sled would slide down a slope and hit the bottom. It was very jarring and very convincing. I won't sit in a motor vehicle without a seat belt on. In France, where they are more laid back about safety (or at least they were in 1999), this often got me some strange looks. I lived in an apartment in Lyon that did not have a single smoke detector anywhere in the building.

Wouldn't you know it? After I moved out, the building suffered a severe fire (caused by a careless cigarette) that rendered the stairs inoperable and thus the people on the upper floors couldn't escape. The first thing my friend knew about the fire was a fireman waking him up after knocking down his door. His apartment was *full* of choking smoke. So much for "the smell of smoke will wake me up", as he always claimed when I pointed out the lack of the smoke detector!

I wonder if any doctors online will grant you a smoke detector exemption? Those are required by building codes almost everywhere in the US now. There's got to be some fringe group out there that will claim the trace amount of americium in them cause health problems.

Ahem. Sorry to get off topic.

I'm with you, Sibyl...I don't care if I'm just backing down a driveway in my car, my seatbelt is ALWAYS on. There are so many things in this world that you can argue over with regards to their safety or ability to prevent injury. But a properly-fitted seatbelt is awfully low on that list.

I would never live somewhere without smoke detectors! Being in a house fire (especially at night) was my biggest fear as a child, and being married to a former volunteer firefighter has made me especially vigilant about checking smoke detectors regularly and changing the batteries.

Well, the same argument can be used to, for example, argue that people who don't eat a healthy diet or exercise regularly ought to be subject to fines - or mandatory fitness classes, etc.

I just don't like wearing a seat belt - so I don't.

It's the same deal with the helmet laws. If you want to wear it, you can, if not, then don't.

Given, if you are in a serious motorcycle crash, chances are you won't survive anyway - but there is always that *CHANCE*.

However, I have been pegged in the head many times with rocks flying up from the road or shit flying out of a truck. If I weren't wearing my helmet, it could have been serious. SO's Road King has a windshield which helps deflect SOME things, but not all.

Here in PA where we are, you don't need helmets on a bike. I ALWAYS wear mine, unfortunately, SO does not.

Hey KFLL, I live in PA, too...I just shake my head whenever I see people on bikes not wearing helmets. My husband wants to buy a motorcycle later this year, after I finish my Master's program and (hopefully) land a job. Thankfully, he's a big believer in helmets and other safety gear for motorcycles.