additional commentary by Timothy Horrigan; August 5, 2009
In the spring of 2009, the New Hampshire House tried to get a seatbelt law passed. Nww Hampshire is the last state in the union not to require seatbelts for adult drivers, and it costs us about $5 million a year in lost federal aid to be that last state. My libertarian friends were highly displeased with the bill, but it got through the Transportation committee, passed the House the first time, went to the Ways & Means committee (who reduced the fine) and then it passed the House again.
It was a fairly simple bill. It was a "primary" seatbelt bill, which means the cops could pull you over just for being unbelted.
The Senate turned it into a "secondary" bill, meaning the cops can only bust you for being unbelted when you have committed some other offense.
Here is the written testimony which I presented to the Senate Transportation Committee. I turned out pretty good: I got some free media out of it.
|
Written Testimony on HB 383; April 20, 2009 Rep. Timothy Horrigan (D-Durham) 7-A Faculty Road; Durham, NH 03824; ph: 603-868-3342
I urge the Transportation Committee and the full Senate to vote Ought to Pass on HB398.
Wearing seat belts is plain old New Hampshire commonsense, in my opinion. I personally would find it as unnatural to be in my car without a seatbelt as to be in my car on the left side of the road. Do I drive on the right side of the road just because it is against the law to do so? No, not really— although I certainly do obey the rules of the road. Do I move on over to the left side of the road when there is no oncoming traffic? No. Is the state infringing on my freedom when it tells me to stay on the right side of the road? No, not at all. I tend to be a libertarian but I think this is one of those places where the state has every right to make rules and enforce them. Wearing your seatbelts is as basic as driving on the right side of the road. In fact it is even more basic: some countries drive on the left, which is just as safe as driving on the right—as long as everyone is driving on the same side. Wearing my seatbelts is, in my opinion, as basic a precaution as driving on the same side of the road as the other drivers, having lights on your car, keeping the windshield clear, and being sober.
Seat belts do not prevent all injuries. Indeed, approximately a quarter of all motor vehicle fatalities are people who were wearing seat belts. But your odds of survival are much better when you buckle up. Not only that, your odds of being conscious and mobile after a wreck are greater after a crash, which means you can help the other drivers and the first responders deal with the emergency. Even before the wreck, you can control the car better if you are belted in behind the wheel rather than being tossed around the inside of your car.
Rep. Jordan Ulery, in an email he sent me explaining why he opposed seat belt usage, stated: "The number of fractured collarbones, ribs, pelvises, backs, dislocated shoulders and neck injuries I have treated because of the presence of a standard issue, non-custom lap and shoulder restraint system is enormous." He doesn't say how enormous the number was, but he is paramedic and an expert in the field of motor vehicle accidents, so I am sure it was indeed a large number. However, I am still in favor of seat belt use: the vast majority of those victims Rep. Ulery treated would have suffered even more serious injuries had they not been wearing their seat belts: they would have hit the windshield, or the dashboard, or an airbag (which is dangerous in and of itself.) In some cases, they might have been ejected from the vehicle. Yes the seat belts may have quote-unquote "caused" the injuries Rep. Ullery describes: but they also, in a large percentage of cases, simultaneously prevented even more serious injuries.
You will doubtless hear many tragic stories during your deliberations concerning people who are trapped in the wreckage of their cars: sometimes cars do plunge into bodies of water or even catch on fire. And when that sort of thing happens to you, you don't want to be trapped in your car. Luckily, it takes only a split second to reach down and unfasten your belt. Your odds of escape are in fact much better if you have your seat belt on. And, if you end up needing to be cut free from the wreckage, rest assured that our first responders, such as Rep. Ulery, can deal with your seat belt once they have cut away all the sheet metal. |
|
(Jordan Ulery is a very conservative state rep who was adamantly against seatbelts: he wasn't just against the law, he was against the belts as well.) |
The Senate tabled the bill. I wrote the following letter to the Dover, NH Foster's Daily Democrat, which was published on May 29, 2009, as part of a futile effort to revive the bill:
|
Original URL (subject to link rot): http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090529/GJOPINION_01/705299948 |
|
Were seat belts used? |
Since then, the paper actually has started mentioning seat belt use in its articles. But the Senate never un-tabled the bill.
On
October 10, 2009, the prime sponsor of HB 383, Sally Kelly
(D-Chichester) was
nearly killed in a car crash, right around the corner from her
home, on Route 4 (the road I drive to get to Concord.) She would have
died had she not been wearing her seat belt. Another state rep, Gina
Hutchinson (D-Derry) also nearly got killed in a crash on January 17,
2010, also not far from her home.
A much smaller irony is that a
motorcycle helmet bill came before the House in 2010— and I
actually actively worked to kill it, on "Live Free or Die"
grounds. My reasoning was primarily that the seatbelt is an integral
part of the car. Driving without the seatbelt is like driving without
the headlights or the wipers. A motorcycle helmet, however, is not an
integral part of the vehicle, hence it is an affront to liberty to
mandate wearing the helmet. (That's my rationalization, and I am sticking to it.)
See Also:
My April 6, 2009 BlueHampshire.com diary: "The Seatbelt Bill is back before the House"
October 12, 2009 WMUR-TV story: Rep. Kelly was in bad shape but still able to give an interview.
HCR 28: in opposition to a Federal Constitutional Convention
HB 1402: in favor of repealing the criminal penalty for adultery