But his point is perfectly valid. Failing to fasten your seatbelt puts no one in danger but yourself. Why should the government care?

I hope you're both trolling, but just in case you aren't:

This argument is ridiculous. Of COURSE you're endangering others if you don't wear a seatbelt. Let's say you get in an accident- even if its your fault- and you die because you're not wearing a seatbelt. This is a huge psychological cost on the other parties in the accident.

Cars and roads are dangerous. Everyone has the responsibility to reduce the chance of injury to everyone inside their vehicle- including themselves. It's not just you that get injured when you get injured.

There's more to this argument, but I find the psychological cost argument compelling enough on its own.

Any other situation where we're subjecting ourselves to needless health issues is legal. Is it illegal to stick your tongue in an electrical socket? Is it illegal to eat nothing but McDonalds for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, every day? Is it illegal to touch yourself whilst scuba diving in a shark-invested bay off the coast of an active volcano?

The only reason mandated seat belt-wearing doesn't sound ridiculous is because it's part of tradition. No one wants to question a law that's been around for so long, especially if it's hardly inconvenient and in the name of "safety".

And I'm pretty sure brainbomb is trolling. I figured I'd champion the cause though :) (aka I'm not trolling.)

US courts generally find that seat belt laws represent a reasonable exercise of police power in the interest of the public health and welfare.

I'm not sure what it means to say that "no form of authority has any right to question what I do in my car." What is the legal basis for this claim? Why can't the state reasonably regulate your behavior when driving under a state-issued license on public roads? Whether the state should or should not impose this regulation is another matter, though I also agree with the status quo on that one.

@ brainbomb: "I own my car therefore it is my own sovereign state."

This is ridiculous bullshit of the highest order. Your car is a sovereign state? Don't be stupid.

You might as well say "I own this pair of jeans and these boots, therefore they are a sovereign state. I am therefore exempt from any other federal or state jurisdiction whilst wearing them."

I don't know about you, Jamie, but I for one am very much in favour of the government having zero influence over the contents of my trousers and any goings on therein.

Seatbelts are an odd thing. Where you enforce seatbelt wearing you change the risk perception of drivers and this leads to higher speeds and frequency of accidents, although the frequency of fatal accidents falls. Generally speaking seatbelts are better for public health, but so was post war rationing and there is little demand for that.

In all honesty with insurance costs these days the law is probably unnecessary, as most people would voluntarily wear them to keep their premiums low even if they didn't buy the safety argument.

@" What is the legal basis for this claim?"

What is the basis for any legal claims?

@Jamie, how much for the sovereign jeans/boots package? Asking for a friend.

@ Brainbomb..seatbelts cut the cost of health costs too all , been legal in Australia for decades and have been successful in reducing injury..

Unless of course Mr Brainbomb you are a morbidly obese gamer who should go out and drive without seat belt to the nearest McD's . This will use all your post war rations . Due to your size you can also forgo the wearing of trousers. And due to size declare yourself a independent country and have your own laws in the car as initially suggested.

@ Octavious: Do you claim that your trousers are a sovereign state? That is the claim brainbomb was making about has car.

Does brainbomb's car have a seat at the United Nations? Do any other sovereign states recognise it? Does the car have the full right to govern itself? No, of course nor do your trousers.

Stop being silly.

I'm not fat because I smoke ...everyone to there own vice..

We know that us states where seatbelt laws are primary enforcement they have greater usage than secondary enforcement. Seat belts reduce fatalities by half and it's a huge cost to the state to clean up fatalities.

Before you waste too much time drawing up contingency plans to prevent brainbomb from driving into Europe and annexing the Sudetenland, Jamie, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest he does not literally view his car as a sovereign state.

laws against punching you in the face are also an infringement upon my personal liberty.

It has my name on it. It is my property. It is a private owned state where laws of the land are null. I should be allowed to do what I want in my car the same as I should in a home. For instance if I want to have a sex dungeoun or do heroin in my house thats in the privacy of my home. My car those same laws and liberties should apply.

I should be allowed then to tamper with my air bags and make them into fun party balloons too.

So if you committed murder in your car...?

Of course I could be wrong...

that's also a good way to escape imprisonment - just get in your car.

You wouldnt call it murder if I fail to trim my grass on my property and nests of venemous snakes move into the tall weeds and start biting joggers. Why is this any different.

"Seat belts reduce fatalities by half and it's a huge cost to the state to clean up fatalities."

By that logic these things should also be illegal:
Smoking
Using alcohol
Not taking prescribed diabetes medications
Not taking prescribed hypertension medications
Not taking prescribed psychiatric medications
Rock climbing
Unprotected sex
Getting pregnant
Camping
Hiking
Driving
Swimming

Just because something is a good idea does not mean it should be a law.

No, brainbomb, you didn't catch my meaning. I mean literally taking someone into your car and shooting them right in the face or stabbing them or something.

Murder is illegal

But is it still illegal if you personally do it in your car?

How exactly am I driving and also murdering people simultaneously first of all. The argument you are making has some merit I will grant you that but consider these scenarios.

A. Susan is driving my car because I am tired. we have our baby in the backseat with no proper car seat. We are leaving a friends house a block away from home so we didnt bother to buckle up or put the baby in the car seat. We get pulled over, and lose custody of our child.

B. Bob is driving home from work, didnt have his seat belt on. He dies in an accident. Burden of ignorance is on him.

C. Joe doesnt put on his seatbelt. nothing bad happens and he arrives safely at home.

D. Joe drives back to work, gets a ticket for no seatbelt and then is removed from his car (property) and beaten by a crooked cop. Joe gets jailtime, cop gets raise.

"Murder is illegal"

so is driving without a seatbelt. your point?

My sovereign state (car) recognizes that there are certain crimes which are intolerable. Taking another persons life revokes aforementioned statehood.

This would be a non-issue outside America, because we have universal healthcare. So if you drive without a seatbelt and you crash, the government picks up the tab, and it could have been avoidable if you had your seatbelt on. The law is justifiable because for a minor inconvenience, the risk of serious injuries in car crashes is significantly lowered.

In America, although you are responsible for your own healthcare, consider a person on Medicaid or the like driving a car (or travelling in one). The car crashes and the same logic applies.

"In America, although you are responsible for your own healthcare, consider a person on Medicaid or the like driving a car (or travelling in one). The car crashes and the same logic applies."

I love that people who argue for seat belt and helmet laws always fall back to the $ argument. That argument being that it saves the government $ if you use a seat belt or helmet. In the same breath they point to the "logic" of their argument.

1. Why is it my responsibility to save the government money?
2. If we really want to save the government money, why don't we outlaw alcohol, smoking and firearms? Why don't we require people take medications to manage their chronic costly diseases?

I'm an adult that lives in the USA. I don't need a babysitter.