(Before I start, let me point out that I am one of those who believes in minimal government, but also that, if applied correctly, the government works)
The problem with this argument is that when a person who is exercising their right to
A)not wear a seatbelt
or
B)not restrain the kids properly
or
C)not wear a helmet on a motorcycle
gets in an accident, all of the rest of us have to pay. We pay via higher insurance premiums and taxes. It's obvious that higher premiums result from increased use of an insurance program, but many people don't realize who pays for the long-term care of those who cripple themselves while "exercising their rights". Once the insurance runs out (which it quickly will), it's Medicare/Medicaid. And they, or rather, we the taxpayers, pay hundreds of dollars per day per person for care of people who felt that they didn't need to follow safety guidelines. It happens dozens of times every day in your area, you just don't hear about it. [If you want to know about the statistics in your particular area, call the regional trauma center and ask for their trauma registrar (the person responsible for gathering and tracking injury data). Ask him/her how many patients are discharged from their facility to long-term care institutions. You will be staggered...I know I was when I started working with the registry here.]
Government regulation of traffic safety is one of the few regulatory success stories, a story which is, unfortunately, a well-kept secret. Each year, Americans increase the number of miles they drive, and yet the number of traffic deaths remains at a virtual constant - about 50,000 annually. Why is this? Government regulations. Some examples:
*Road surfaces have improved. There are now rules for what can and can't be used, based on traffic volume.
*Roadway safety improvements. Better lighting, fade-resistant reflective road lines, improved grading of turns. Metal guardrails on urban highways are quickly becoming a thing of the past, replaced by concrete "Jersey barriers," a far more effective device for preventing lane crossover of out-of-control vehicles.
*Massive improvements in vehicle safety. The auto makers would NEVER have changed the way they built cars unless the government hadn't forced them to, their protests are a matter of public record. Think about the average car of 1960 and what is different because of these imposed standards: protruding switches, regular glass in the windows, unpadded visors, rigid steering wheels on unbendable columns, no roll cage, no crumple zones in the hood (always good for a decapitation or two), no engine compartment firewall, nothing to keep the engine from winding up in the occupant's lap....the list goes on and on. But the best improvement was the safety belt. In 1960, if a belt was even present, it likely was not a metal-to-metal attachment, but a strap/clamp device which couldn't restrain a 150 pound person in a collision over 20 mph. Nor can a simple lap belt keep you from opening your skull on the steering wheel. A three-point harness can.
*Decreases in the allowable blood alcohol levels and mandatory seatbelt, motorcycle helmet and child restraint laws. In each and every juridiction where these laws are enacted, traffic related injuries and deaths decrease significantly. Period. And the best part of this? Unlike all the other things I listed above, it doesn't cost anybody *one single penny*.
So, would you like to decrease your tax burden and save lives without spending any money? If your answer is yes, think about giving up a little responsibilty to the government.
*
*
*
B