If threat of death won’t make people use seat belts, why should a fine?

[Keith and stuff]

If threat of death won’t make people use seat belts, why should a fine?
Sen. Eric Brakey's argument for L.D. 112 rests primarily on a libertarian's principled insistence that government has a heavy burden of proof to justify use of force and coercion.
By John Frary
https://www.centralmaine.com/2015/03...should-a-fine/

“Experts blast bill to nullify seat belt laws.” This recent headline in a statewide newspaper was supported by the record of the recent legislative hearing on L.D. 112.

Many of the bill’s opponents likely were spurred to testify by the recent titanic interstate vehicle pile-up, in which first responders attributed the relatively small number of injuries to likely seat-belt usage.

On hand to blast the bill were two trauma surgeons and representatives from the Maine Sheriffs Association, LifeFlight of Maine, the Maine Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association, the Maine Chiefs of Police Association, the Maine Department of Public Safety, AAA of Northern New England and the Maine Medical Association.

Sen. Eric Brakey, R-Auburn, was in the blast zone as L.D. 112’s author. The bill also has support from Sen. Ron Collins, R-Wells, Rep. Beth O’Connor, R-Berwick, and Rep. Charlotte Warren, D-Hallowell, but no expert of any description showed up to support him, only a lone resident of Sidney.

Let’s for a moment ponder the words of Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury: “No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should never trust experts. If you believe doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe. They all require their strong wine diluted by a very large admixture of insipid common sense.”

In this case, it seems, insipid common sense requires the experts to explain why drivers need coercion to take precautions. Less insipidly, common sense asks why experts expect idiots to buckle up when faced with the threat of a fine while they remain indifferent to the threat of the death, maiming or broken bones if they remain unbuckled.

More than 20 years ago, my vehicle was rear-ended by a driver (drunken, drugged or maniac) outside Farmington, Conn. I recovered consciousness securely buckled, inside a cocoon of wreckage. I did not require the threat of a fine to buckle up back then, still less now. Yet, I support L.D. 112.

Brakey also favors the use of seat belts, agrees they save lives and fastens them around himself regularly. He does not agree that law has the power to cure people of recklessness, thoughtlessness or absent-mindedness.

Read the second half of the article.
https://www.centralmaine.com/2015/03...should-a-fine/

[squarepusher]

Well, people aren't exactly logical in that sort of way, the same reason people smoke.

[Ronin Truth]

Fine threats are much more numerous and higher than death threats?

[brandon]

If threat of death won’t make people use seat belts, why should a fine?

Because the probability of getting a fine is much greater than that of death.

Is this really not obvious to some people?

[dannno]

Well, people aren't exactly logical in that sort of way, the same reason people smoke.

Smoking is an easy/cheap way to relax, why isn't wanting to relax logical?

[Keith and stuff]

Because the probability of getting a fine is much greater than that of death.

Is this really not obvious to some people?

Some states even do seat belt check points. An adult seat belt check point is either a complete waste of police resources or a conspiracy to search cars for other violations.

[donnay]

It's not about safety, it's about control. Plain and simple.

[TheGrinch]

It's not about safety, it's about control. Plain and simple.

Yep, just look at the "Drive Sober or get pulled over" campaigns. The entire theme doesn't show any of the dangers of drunk driving, it simply reinforces that "cops are watching, waiting to bust you".

If they're going to spend the money on "public safety", then how about campaigns that show the gruesomeness of what happens when people drive drunk or don't wear their seatbelts. I know my experience with both (I've been both slammed by a drunk driver, and rolled my car twice where only my seatbelt saved my life) is the prevailing factor in me (not) doing either.

Not that I'm crazy about fear-based campaigns either, but I think both are noble and real enough issues, that people need to think twice about the very real possibilities of what can happen when you ignore the warnings.

[thoughtomator]

Because the probability of getting a fine is much greater than that of death.

Is this really not obvious to some people?

Worse than that - probably more people have been killed in enforcement action than the net killed for lack of wearing a seat belt.

[otherone]

It's not about safety, it's about control. Plain and simple.

It's about revenue.
Insurance companies should be the arbiter.

[juleswin]

Well, people aren't exactly logical in that sort of way, the same reason people smoke.

Actually, its very logical, you see, people usually aren't afraid of a quick painless events (like dying in a car accident) especially when the probability of it happening is very small. On the other hand, fines are very painful and has a high probability of happening if you don't obey the rules.

So fines are more likely to make one buckle up than the small probability of dying in a car accident. Also its not like putting on a seat belt decreases the chances of dying or getting severely injured as much as not smoking protects you from COPD, lung, esophageal and oral cancer.

Edit: Like Danno said, the logical reason behind smoking is the benefits of smoking like relaxation etc etc. People who smoke weigh the merits v demerits and choose smoking of not smoking. I may not agree with it but that is logical.

[TheGrinch]

Actually, its very logical, you see, people usually aren't afraid of a quick painless events (like dying in a car accident) especially when the probability of it happening is very small. On the other hand, fines are very painful and has a high probability of happening if you don't obey the rules.

So fines are more likely to make one buckle up than the small probability of dying in a car accident. Also its not like putting on a seat belt decreases the chances of dying or getting severely injured as much as not smoking protects you from COPD, lung, esophageal and oral cancer.

Edit: Like Danno said, the logical reason behind smoking is the benefits of smoking like relaxation etc etc. People who smoke weigh the merits v demerits and choose smoking of not smoking. I may not agree with it but that is logical.

Exactly.

I always shrug when people here try to tell me that punishment has no deterrent effect, just because many people still do it. All that means is that the deterrent effect is stronger in some than others, or in the cases of things like drunk driving, that the desire to drink publicly (and not have to go through the trouble or definite expense of taking a cab) is greater than the smaller perceived risk of punishment or wrecking their car.

One can still be against busy-body laws, whilst recognizing that the threat of fine or imprisonment does deter plenty of people. It is a large part of how they maintain control.

[brandon]

wrong thread, removed

[pcosmar]

It's about revenue.
Insurance companies should be the arbiter.

NO,, they should not..

Why should some Corporate Profit margin define my liberty?

[Keith and stuff]

"Here's your ticket for not wearing a seatbelt..."
https://twitter.com/TheLiberTweets/s...59420432289796

[brushfire]

What about the poor starving bureaucrats? How will they afford their porridge? Who's going to feed them if their police force cant issue citations?