Why Did New Hampshire Reject the Seat-Belt Law?

[Evo]

So if I get in a car accident and die because I did not have a seat belt on, how does this cost the tax-payer more money than if I get in an accident with my seat belt on and live? If I live, I will surely be more costly to care for than if I die.

Ambulance, coroner's office, autopsy. That's if you're dead before they get there. If you die shortly after they get to you the cost can be astronomical, especially if you are taken to an emergency room. Not to mention the thousands of dollars a month in Social security benefits paid to your survivors.

 

[devil-fire]

theres a Loooong ways between being ok and dead. a seatbelt might leave someone with some nasty bruises in the same accident that would leave someone with broken limbs, huge amounts of road rash, skin graphs, reconstructive surgery, damaged internal organs and the need for a blood transfusion.

 

[out of whack]

So if I get in a car accident and die because I did not have a seat belt on, how does this cost the tax-payer more money than if I get in an accident with my seat belt on and live? If I live, I will surely be more costly to care for than if I die.

I don't think you are being serious with this reply. Following this line of thinking, all safety measures should be eliminated along with seat belts. If in fact you were serious then I think you need to give it more thought.

 

[Huckleberry]

I see two main problems here.

1. There is a financial expense to society when a person needlessly injures themselves. This is a valid reason for the requirement to use a seat bealt. It would be just as irresponsible (even if it would be justice) for society to let people die needlessly. There are solutions to this that allow freedom, but they require the individual to be responsible.

I'll pose some possible solutions.
A. Insurance companies do not cover medical expenses for unbelted drivers/passengers.
B. Insurance companies have a seperate, much higher rate, for people that choose not to wear their seat belts. If the person who enters into this contract is injured in a manner that a seat belt would have prevented then refer to solution 1.
C. Insurance companies only pay an amount of medical expenses that is statictically shown not to raise the national average in cases where a person was injured while not wearing a seat belt. (People can be injured even while wearing a seat belt. If the medical expenses of those only involved in accidents where the injured person was wearing a seatbelt were averaged, then this amount could be the 'cap' for those who are involved in an accident while not wearing a seatbelt. This would make a negligible difference in the national average expense.)

2. The second problem I see is a matter of responsibility. Are we responsible for the government, or is the government responsible for us, or is it a combination of both?

I am of the opinion that society is responsible for the government, and the government is responsible for enforcing the laws that we, as a society, deem best for ourselves. We give it authority over us, but society bears the responsibility. I see a properly functioning government as an employee of the society responsible for it. So, if an individual takes an action that only harms that individual, isn't it their right to govern themselves? If this person's act doesn't injure society, then why should society be involved in the responsibility of the individual's act?

 

[Huckleberry]

How many people actually wear a seat belt because there is a law requiring it? From my experience it still seems to be a matter of choice, and not an action that people take because a law exists that requires them to.

Motorcycles don't have seat belts. They are significantly more dangerous to ride than automobiles. Should we make motorcycles illegal? Why are the insurance rates for motorcycles lower than for automobiles? Are the medical expenses incurred while in a motorcycle accident less expensive than those incurred in a vehicle?
Buses don't all have seat belts. Should we make a law that they do?

 

[MeJennifer]

http://www.hendersonvillenews.com/article/20070524/ZNYT04/705240367/1170/BUSINESS/ZNYT04/New_Hampshire_Panel_Rejects_Seat_Belt_Law

I've always been found of New Hampshire for their State motto if nothing else: Live free or die. They understand what America and liberty are all about. "Freedom" means free to make bad decisions, like not wearing a seat belt.

I have no problem with this `freedom to be stupid` as long as I, my insurance company and society does not have to pay for the hospital bills.

 

[drankin]

How many people actually wear a seat belt because there is a law requiring it? From my experience it still seems to be a matter of choice, and not an action that people take because a law exists that requires them to.

Motorcycles don't have seat belts. They are significantly more dangerous to ride than automobiles. Should we make motorcycles illegal? Why are the insurance rates for motorcycles lower than for automobiles? Are the medical expenses incurred while in a motorcycle accident less expensive than those incurred in a vehicle?
Buses don't all have seat belts. Should we make a law that they do?

Motorcycle insurance is less expensive because they can do less damage to another vehicle or their drivers. Rarely is a driver of a 4 wheeled vehicle injured or killed by a motorcyclist. My state doesn't even require motorcycle insurance.

There are two kinds of motorcyclists, those who have gone done, and those that are going down. It's part of the riding a bike.

 

[daveb]

I'll pose some possible solutions.
A. Insurance companies do not cover medical expenses for unbelted drivers/passengers.
B. Insurance companies have a seperate, much higher rate, for people that choose not to wear their seat belts. If the person who enters into this contract is injured in a manner that a seat belt would have prevented then refer to solution 1.
C. Insurance companies only pay an amount of medical expenses that is statictically shown not to raise the national average in cases where a person was injured while not wearing a seat belt.

The biggest problem I see with this is that the more grave the injury, the more expensive treatment costs. Someone has to pay for it. If a person "opts out", then the segment of society that pays for it is the hospital itself, unless of course the individual is wealthy enough to afford to pay for it alone. If the hospital pays for it, then the rest of society pays for it in increased medical costs.

The true question then becomes, do seatbelts reduce severity of inuries sustained? While there are many studies that show this is the case (a Google search will show many sources), there are also questions about whether people who don't use seatbelts are simply more unsafe than those who do wear seatbelts, and thus are in more injurious accidents.

 

[drankin]

Ambulance, coroner's office, autopsy. That's if you're dead before they get there. If you die shortly after they get to you the cost can be astronomical, especially if you are taken to an emergency room. Not to mention the thousands of dollars a month in Social security benefits paid to your survivors.

Social security shouldn't be part of the argument. It's paid now or it's paid later and it depends on what the deceased paid into it. All the costs when you die are one time costs. SS was created so that it would be used, not unused.

If the person escaped death and is merely injured because of wearing a seatbelt, those costs could be much higher after the lawyers get done. I can't count how many commercials I see from injury lawyers boasting of getting hundreds of thousands of dollars out of insurance companies because of accident injuries. It's expensive either way but I'd wager it's cheaper if the driver dies than lives.

 

[Huckleberry]

The biggest problem I see with this is that the more grave the injury, the more expensive treatment costs. Someone has to pay for it. If a person "opts out", then the segment of society that pays for it is the hospital itself, unless of course the individual is wealthy enough to afford to pay for it alone. If the hospital pays for it, then the rest of society pays for it in increased medical costs.

They really should have thought of that before they went for a ride without their seat belt. I would argue that the price for medical care is too expensive, but seeing as it is so high, people should think of this when they choose not to wear their seat belts. I believe in individual responsibility. They can spend the rest of their lives paying their medical bills. That was their decision when they didn't buckle up, just like any uninsured motorist. I've never known a hospital to pay anyone's medical bills.

Frankly, I don't think there would be much difference in the expense to society if the law were repealed. The assumption in this thread so far seems to be that if there wasn't a law requiring the use of seat belts that there would be an additional expense to society from unbelted injuries. I doubt the effectiveness of the seat belt law, so I don't necessarily see any correlation between repealing the law and additional injuries.

 

[drankin]

They really should have thought of that before they went for a ride without their seat belt. I would argue that the price for medical care is too expensive, but seeing as it is so high, people should think of this when they choose not to wear their seat belts. I believe in individual responsibility. They can spend the rest of their lives paying their medical bills. That was their decision when they didn't buckle up, just like any uninsured motorist. I've never known a hospital to pay anyone's medical bills.

Frankly, I don't think there would be much difference in the expense to society if the law were repealed. The assumption in this thread so far seems to be that if there wasn't a law requiring the use of seat belts that there would be an additional expense to society from unbelted injuries. I doubt the effectiveness of the seat belt law, so I don't necessarily see any correlation between repealing the law and additional injuries.

If anything, their would be more deaths. Hence the phrase, "seat belts save lives". I don't think society suffers monetarily through higher medical expenses when someone is dead. I will say that I could be wrong, I don't have the stats, but it seems to me that this the case.

 

[daveb]

They really should have thought of that before they went for a ride without their seat belt.

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of this. My point is that allowing an opt out clause will increase costs to society based on the assumption that those who exercise the opt-out will have more serious injuries, should an accident occur. These increased costs are borne not by the person, but by society. Thus, opt-out should not be available. (we can debate later about whether lack of seatbelts does increase injury severity).

I would argue that the price for medical care is too expensive, but seeing as it is so high, people should think of this when they choose not to wear their seat belts. I believe in individual responsibility. They can spend the rest of their lives paying their medical bills. That was their decision when they didn't buckle up, just like any uninsured motorist. I've never known a hospital to pay anyone's medical bills.

Yes, they should pay for it for the rest of their lives. However, this isn't always the case, which is the problem. If there were a way to enforce thaem paying for the rest of their lives, I have no problem with opt-out clauses. The problem with this is that since medical care is so expensive, it could amount to slavery if the person owes so much that they literally have to work several jobs just to keep up with payments, and have nothing left over for basic necessities.

Frankly, I don't think there would be much difference in the expense to society if the law were repealed. The assumption in this thread so far seems to be that if there wasn't a law requiring the use of seat belts that there would be an additional expense to society from unbelted injuries. I doubt the effectiveness of the seat belt law, so I don't necessarily see any correlation between repealing the law and additional injuries.

I would tend to agree for most cases that the increased cost will not be seen. I base this in part on the assumption that if the law were repealed, very few people would decide, "Heck, now I can go without! Whoopee!" If they were that opposed to it in the first place, I would hazard a guess they just don't obey the law in the first place. Of course, there would be some finite percentage that would decide that since it is no longer a law, they would do without the seatbelt. That's a difficult to quantify number, unfortunately, so until it can be quantified, I would prefer a seatbelt law.

 

[Evo]

Social security shouldn't be part of the argument. It's paid now or it's paid later and it depends on what the deceased paid into it. All the costs when you die are one time costs. SS was created so that it would be used, not unused.

Let's say this person dies and has three young children and a wife. The kids are 1, 3 & 5. They will receive survivor benefits until they are 18 years old, I will have to check for how long the wife receives benefits. This is MUCH MORE paid out in benefits than if the non-belt wearer started getiing benefits at age 72 and only collected for himself for a few years. This is a HUGE drain on Social Security.

 

[BobG]

Seatbelts not only save lives, they reduce the severity of injuries, which does reduce medical costs.

I still see a problem with the cost to other insurance customers and taxpayers being the justification for mandatory seatbelt laws.

How about mandatory helmet laws for motorcyclists? Head protection gives a motorcyclist a better chance of surviving an accident. The side effect is the other injuries a motorcyclist sustains have to be treated, which increases the cost to other insurance customers and taxpayers. Since helmets increase medical costs for motorcyclists involved in an accident, should we have mandatory no-helmet laws instead?

In any event, as someone else at least alluded to, the medical costs aren't the main driver behind increased insurance costs. Cars are built safer, which isn't the same as being built more durable. Every piece of sheet metal that bends or flies off your car in an accident carries away some momentum, sparing the passengers from an even harder impact. That also means the expense of minor accidents skyrockets since the damage to cars is greater and more expensive to repair. Once again, we're paying a higher cost in insurance to increase the safety of motorists. Reduced safety requirments would reduce insurance costs and make cars cheaper to buy as well.

Most people would find it unethical to make life more dangerous for other people just to save a buck or two. Personally, I think it's just as unethical to start taking people's liberties away just to save a buck or two.

 

[BobG]

Let's say this person dies and has three young children and a wife. The kids are 1, 3 & 5. They will receive survivor benefits until they are 18 years old, I will have to check for how long the wife receives benefits. This is MUCH MORE paid out in benefits than if the non-belt wearer started getiing benefits at age 72 and only collected for himself for a few years. This is a HUGE drain on Social Security.

The 1 year old is the driving factor. The benefit paid to the surviving kids is divided up among the number of kids (just in case the kids get split up, I guess?) When the oldest graduates and is no longer eligible for benefits, that kid's share is split among the other kids, leaving the total benefits paid out constant.

I'm not sure how the benefits paid to the wife are affected by benefits paid to the kids.

 

[Hurkyl]

Most people would find it unethical to make life more dangerous for other people just to save a buck or two. Personally, I think it's just as unethical to start taking people's liberties away just to save a buck or two.

Every dollar that's not spent on one thing is spent on something else.

 

[out of whack]

Let's debunk some claims being made here that safety equipment increases health care costs because those who use them don't die. If you think this, give yourself a slap on the side of the head, with or without your helmet on.

http://www.ahip.org/links/NHTSA_Site/motorcycle.html][/PLAIN]
In studies comparing hospital costs for helmeted and non-helmeted motorcyclists involved in traffic crashes, unhelmeted riders are more likely to have higher hospital costs than helmeted riders involved in similar crashes.
[...]
On average, approximately $15,000 of inpatient costs would be saved during the first 12 months for every injured motorcycle rider not sustaining a brain injury. In one Wisconsin study, the average hospital charges for unhelmeted motorcyclists with brain injuries were $24,7045 compared with $19,624 for helmeted motorcyclists with brain injuries.

And about seat belts:

http://www.nsc.org/public/impactseatbeltonvamedicaid.pdf][/PLAIN]

The estimates reported here are minimum savings associated with implementation of a primary safety belt law. In this study we do not explore the peripheral costs (loss of wages and tax revenues, productivity, loss of life, etc.). [...] unemployment is much higher among disabled persons and family members frequently need to defer employment to become care takers. [...] We also do not address the savings to private business and citizens of the state. Lastly, we do not attempt to place a price on human life, pain
and suffering. [...] In sum, the state of Virginia could expect to save at least $21.5 million dollars over the next 10 years on its annual budget in medical costs alone by implementing a primary safety belt law in 2004.

Safety equipment is designed to save people, not only their lives but also their health. Big DUH on that one. Wearing it saves hospital bills, plain and simple. It saves all sorts of other expenses as well as listed above and it's good for the society that makes it possible for you to drive or ride in the first place. Not wearing safety equipment that manufacturers are legally obligated to provide is negligent, irresponsible, and it should be illegal.

 

[Huckleberry]

My point is that allowing an opt out clause will increase costs to society based on the assumption that those who exercise the opt-out will have more serious injuries, should an accident occur. These increased costs are borne not by the person, but by society. Thus, opt-out should not be available.

The opt-out clause would be covered by an increased insurance rate for those who decide to use it. The money for treating these injuries would come from the collective group of motorists that decide to take advantage of the clause. It would basically separate the insurance money into two groups, those who choose to use their seat belts and those who do not. One group would not be financially responsible for the other.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

In sum, the state of Virginia could expect to save at least $21.5 million dollars over the next 10 years on its annual budget in medical costs alone by implementing a primary safety belt law in 2004.

Actually, that's not out of whack's quote, he was quoting someone else. The population of Virginia is 7 million, this savings amounts to 30 cents per year per person.

 

[drankin]

Actually, that's not out of whack's quote, he was quoting someone else. The population of Virginia is 7 million, this savings amounts to 30 cents per year per person.

Small price to pay for a personal liberty, IMO.

 

[Evo]

The opt-out clause would be covered by an increased insurance rate for those who decide to use it. The money for treating these injuries would come from the collective group of motorists that decide to take advantage of the clause. It would basically separate the insurance money into two groups, those who choose to use their seat belts and those who do not. One group would not be financially responsible for the other.

Car insurance doesn't cover much in medical costs, your personal medical insurance is expected to pay, so again, society is stuck with the bill. Then are are also Social Security disability payments that haven't been brought up.

 

[out of whack]

this savings amounts to 30 cents per year per person

True, it doesn't seem expensive, but this was just to correct wrong ideas voiced here. Since thirty cents hardly covers the cost of a seat belt, there must be more to it, and of course there is. A quick search to find other estimates readily finds that for Minnesota and Missouri, savings would be around $1.70 per year per resident. I would also expect a buck or two for other states as well so it still looks affordable. But these savings are strictly for medical costs. They do not include the cost of families caring for their cripples and their lack of employability during this time, nor does it include the cost of additional deaths with productivity reductions, nor the impact on families and friends.

Also note that the reported costs are not for seat belts versus no seat belts, it is just to make the remaining minority start using them like everyone else, and only a minimum estimate of a single factor. If we calculated all savings per driver with and without seat belts, we would have a better idea of their financial value.

Here is a relevant article:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070416/REPOSITORY/704160352

"Nationwide, the failure to buckle up cost an estimated $26 billion in 2002, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Agency." That's $86 for each citizen, whether they drive or not. It becomes even more significant considering that this cost is caused by a much smaller number of people who drive and who do not buckle up. Those are the target of a mandatory seat belt law.


EDIT:

To price this even better, if 80% of Americans are licensed to drive and all of them actually do (which they don't) and if a conservative 3/4 of drivers already buckle up, then no more than 1 out of 5 American actually drives without a seat belt to account for the $26 billion in question. For them, the individual share of this annual bill is $430 which really should be paid in additional insurance if not in fine. I don't know how many people value this particular freedom enough to justify its cost.

 

[turbo]

Here is a page on helmet laws.

http://www.msabate.com/facts.html

Helmets can reduce the incidence of head/facial injuries, but at a speed of around 13 mph, these are traded off with an increased risk of neck fractures/death. Guess which person the insurance companies would rather have : someone with medical bills/rehabilitation to pay for, or someone dead of a broken neck? Insurance companies are all about the bottom line, and when they pressure state governments to pass helmet laws, it is a bit naive to believe that they have bikers' best interests at heart. I have been riding for 35+ years with two self-inflicted accidents (wheelied over backward on my Yamaha RD350) with no injuries. The day Maine enacts a helmet law is the day my Softail goes up for sale.