[A Com-Post is where I use what was to be a comment on someone else's blog and it ended up being long enough for a post on my own blog. Why waste my witty, insightful prose on someone else's blog when mine is in such need of content?]
In response to
Seatbelt Laws and the Boston Tea Party over at
Fat In Indiana I offer:
I know this is more a big vs. small government discussion and the seatbelt law was just the catalyst that got it going. (And I'm all for LESS government) However, on the seatbelt law, I have just a little different perspective. As a former firefighter, I have been on many MVA's (Motor Vehicle Accidents).
I believe the seatbelt law is another of those intrusive laws based on flawed, slanted statistics. Yeah, I've seen all those crash-test dummy videos and driver's training movies. Vehicles moving in a straight line into other vehicles or obstacles. In a controlled environment. All they prove is that the seatbelt will hold you in place during a crash. Which isn't always a good thing.
I remember an MVA where the steering wheel was crushed into the back of the drivers seat. Would you have wanted to be strapped in place for that? In this case, the driver was thrown free and although hurt and laying in the road, survived. At another, I don't recall whether a belt was in use or not, I removed the driver's body, from behind the steering wheel,
after removing part of the door frame from his body. If he was wearing the belt, it didn't help. If he wasn't, it didn't matter.
I've arrived on scene of numerous rollover MVA's where I (and other's with me) swore we'd be calling in Lifeflight and working for most of the "golden hour" just to remove a badly injured victim(s). Instead we located the
unbelted driver sitting at a nearby house with little or no injury.
Have I been to scenes where someone
was wearing a seatbelt and survived? Sure. That were wearing, but didn't survive?. Absolutely. I've also seen where seatbelts caused not only contusions, but internal injuries at least as bad as similar unbelted victims.
Saying that seatbelts saved X number of lives last year (or ever), isn't a provable statistic, in my opinion.
There is no way to prove, after a real-life MVA, that a person who wasn't killed while wearing a seatbelt, would have been killed if he wasn't wearing one. Think about that. THAT incident shouldn't be used to prove a seatbelt saved a life. It's based on speculation, because there is no way to prove what
would have happened, only what
might have happened. Whereas in my first example, it is pretty clear that having been held in place WOULD have been fatal.
Every single accident is unique. They happen at different speeds, angles and road conditions. The vehicles are of varying sizes. The obstacles they hit, including each other, are of varying sizes, weights and durability. Newer vehicles still have full strength frames and structure, whereas older vehicles are weakened by corrosion and age.
There are costs involved with ANY car accident and whoever is found to be at fault for causing the accident should be responsible, either personally or through his insurance if he has it, for paying any costs involved regardless if anyone wearing or not wearing a seatbelt is injured.
I'm skeptical that the statistics used to warrant this personal intrusion are provable beyond any reasonable doubt. I'm skeptical anytime the government wants to intrude on personal liberty.