Click It or Ticket: Money for the Government

This weekend local television, at least in the San Diego area, has been barraged by "click it or ticket" advertisements. The intent is to get those who fail to utilize seat belts while operating a motor vehicle to actually do so. This morning the local news reported the fine for not having a seat belt on will be raised during the recent "click it or ticket" campaign which will run until June 6.

Not wearing a seat belt while operating or riding in a motor vehicle is not smart. Statistics show there is a higher probability of death for those who don't wear seat belts versus those who do (National highway traffic association, 2008). For me the question is not whether or not you should wear a seat belt, the question is should the government order you to wear a seat belt? For me the answer is a resounding NO.

If you visit my Facebook profile, you'll find under the favorite quotations section a personal quote. The quote is "laws should be made to protect man from man, not man from himself." I believe the seat belt law is a law that protects a person from themselves vice protecting a person from another person. If someone gets into a car accident and dies from their injuries because they were not wearing a seat belt has no bearing on me or any other person, including anyone involved in the accident.

Some may argue that a person who survives the accident but requires expensive medical care would be a burden on the insurance system because the insurance would have to pay to the limits of the policy. This then causes all other premiums to rise. The military informs all military personnel that if they are injured or killed in an automobile accident when they aren't wearing a seat belt, the US Government will not pay any expenses. Looking at my insurance documents on-line I cannot tell if this the same for my insurance company. If this policy of not paying for expenses in the case of non-seat belt use is not the standard, it should be. All insurance companies should refuse to pay for any expenses related to accidents when the claimer failed to wear a seat belt. This then would ensure the person not wearing a seat belt would not be a burden on the insurance system.

Think about that fine (insurance not covering medical if not wearing a seat belt when involved in an accident) for a minute. The state of California will fine a driver not wearing a seat belt $142. I want to fine them if they get into an accident thousands of dollars. My rule is a rule of self responsibility. The government is a rule of forced responsibility when something may or may not happen.

Some may also argue that a person's family should not be made to suffer because of the actions of an irresponsible person. Well, too bad, so sad. It's not the role of government to protect a family from emotional distress or from financial distress because someone failed to wear a seat belt then was injured or killed in a car accident. This happens every day even when the person wears a seat belt.

So what is the purpose of the law? The only purpose is to generate money for the government. There will always be people who don't wear seat belts - I'm not sure why, again, the statistics don't lie - so there will always be someone to ticket for not wearing a seat belt. My problem with this law is that it does not protect the society for the actions of someone. So, what we have is the government telling us we must do something or else we have to pay a fine. And I reiterate that this something does not protect the society as a whole. Is this a power we want to bestow on the government? It is not for me.

I have no problem if the law said the driver is responsible for ensuring the safety of the passengers of the vehicle. This falls under the "due care" aspect of the law. Due care is the care that an ordinarily reasonable and prudent person would use under the same or similar circumstances (Merriam-Webster dictionary of law, 1996). A driver would have the due care to ensure each of his passengers were properly seat belted or restrained, as in the case of a child too small for a seat belt, such that an accident would not harm them while in the driver's vehicle. This means I have no complaint against ticketing a driver who has failed to ensure his passengers have not put on their seat belt. I do have a complaint about ticketing someone who has failed to put on their own seat belt.

There's an old saying: The stupid shall be punished. The stupid are punished by their actions not by us punishing them prior to said actions because something "might happen."

If we give the government the thought they can fine us for not doing something that does not harm anyone but the person involved, there is no limit to what we will allow them to do. Hmmm, everyone must buy health insurance comes to mind.....

Mike

References:

Merriam-Webster's dictionary of law. (1996). MA: Merriam-Webster.

Thomas, K. (2010). Govt: About 45 million Americans don't buckle up. AP. Retrieved 24 May 2010 from http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/may/24/govt-about-45-million-americans-dont-buckle-up/

National highway traffice association. (2008). Fatality anaylsis reporting system. Retrieved 24 May 2010 from http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/PeopleRestraints.aspx