|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Politics Resource Center |
 |
|
||
|
|
||||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
by William J. Holdorf
The information in this essay is not being provided to debate the value of wearing or not wearing a seat belt harness, nor to oppose or discredit voluntary seat belt use. Its main purpose is to oppose seat belt laws and to protect our right to choose our own individual personal safety and health care standards without government interference or coercion as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Facts About State Mandatory Seat Belt Harness Laws 1. While the use of a seat belt has saved some people in certain kinds of traffic accidents, there is ample proof that in other kinds, some people have been more seriously injured and even killed only because of forced seat belt use. In the latter case, such injuries and deaths are not given the same degree of publicity, if any, as given when people are saved by seat belt use. Such bias in compiling traffic accident data exaggerates the so-called benefit of seat belt laws which misleads the public into thinking seat belt use automatically means safety; nonuse automatically means death in all kinds of accidents, which is false. 2. In spite of the fact the government is forcing the use of a device that can be injurious and even lethal in certain situations, the government refuses to be held financially responsible for such injuries or deaths. Instead, the government expects the injured or survivors of those killed to obtain financial satisfaction from their own savings, or insurance, or by suing the auto makers. 3. Some people in certain kinds of traffic accidents have survived only because a seat belt was not used &endash; injured, perhaps, but not dead. Such persons, by law, are subject to a citation and a fine for not dying in the accident using a so-called safety device arbitrarily chosen by politicians. Traffic accident data on such traffic accidents only reflect one more injury without using a seat belt, which, again, exaggerate the so-called benefit of seat belt laws. 4. If a person is killed while using a seat belt, law supporters claim the accident was so severe not even a seat belt could save the person. That might be true in some cases, but the severity of an accident is never mentioned in compiling a list of persons killed while not using a seat belt, which adds to the bias in compiling traffic accident data in favor of seat belt laws. 5. Evidence of seat belt use increasing injuries or causing a person's death in certain kinds of traffic accidents is well documented in the hundreds of successful lawsuits filed against the auto makers since the advent of seat belt laws in 1985. Court ordered settlements and punitive damage awards forced the auto makers to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to the injured or survivors of those killed as a result of the failure of the seat belt to save as promised. Some lawsuits were settled out of court which sealed the evidence of seat belt design defects from the public, including other lawyers with similar cases. 6. Hundreds of thousands of autos, vans and light trucks have been recalled as a result of discovering defects in certain seat belt designs after the fact, which means the motoring public has been forced by law to become unwilling guinea pigs, unlike how all other products in the marketplace are treated. In a letter published in the September/October 1990 edition of AAA World, a publication of the Chicago Motor Club, Jerry Curry, NHTSA Administrator, said: "We opened 213 new defect investigations in 1989, the highest one-year figure in the agency's history. A total of 6.8 million vehicles were recalled that year, a million more than the national average." While Mr. Curry did not say how many such recalls involved seat belt defects, such recalls, again, reflect how the public is being used as guinea pigs for automotive products. 7. There is a body of law that states a person has the right to refuse any personal health care device, drug treatment, or surgery, even if such refusal might result in an earlier death or an increase in medical expenses. All seat belt laws violate that right, that is, to freely choose to use or not to use a "health care" seat belt. Any medical professional attempting to do the same would be prosecuted, yet politicians claim they can ignore the law while demanding strict compliance from the private sector. 8. In 1991 the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed the right to determine one's individual personal health care standard in the Johnson Controls case. Also, a federal appeals court upheld a $100,000 award in 1993 to a 320-pound woman who sued the state of Rhode Island for refusing to hire her back to work unless she lost weight. The federal Equal Opportunity Commission had earlier ruled obesity a protected right under the Act, and the court agreed even though obesity is a self-inflicted health hazard and causes more premature deaths each year than highway fatalities. 9. While there is extensive publicity always given those who support seat belt laws, research published by independent professionals, that is, those not on the federal payroll, which challenges the so-called benefit of seat belt laws, is never printed in the national news media, thus the public is denied the right to know there is a legitimate contrary side to the seat belt law controversy. 10. At one time, it was the same with air bags until one investigative reporter decided to start printing the truth about air bag dangers in certain kinds of traffic accidents. The bureaucrats in the U.S. Dept. of Transportation were so adamant against telling the public about such dangers, which the public had a right to know, the reporter had to use the Freedom of Information Act to force the government to release its own records of air bag injuries and deaths. Primary Enforcement States The insidious nature of seat belt laws is shown even further in states with primary enforcement of the law. The following is what can happen in states with primary enforcement: 1. Your vehicle can be stopped anytime, day or night, by the police merely under suspicion a seat belt is not being used. And even if mistaken, once the vehicle is stopped the officer can begin routine interrogation and testing &endash; force occupants to exit &endash; visually check out the contents of the inside of the vehicle looking for any kind of a violation of the law, all without the right of legal counsel; all under the pretense of not using a seat belt. 2. Primary enforcement encourages the use of random roadblocks. In a 1994 statewide campaign, North Carolina conducted 2,038 roadblocks in two weeks under the pretext of checking for seat belt use. In spite of further use of random roadblocks that year, which the governor boasted increased seat belt use to 80%, total highway facilities actually increased in the state for 1994 over the record of each of the preceding 3 years. 3. If not using a seat belt, you could be stopped for a minor traffic violation that otherwise would be ignored if using a seat belt. You may also be targeted because of a bumper sticker, your license plate, your age, race, or gender. Primary enforcement opens the door for police harassment, intimidation and profiling. Young people, women, and minorities are vulnerable, especially when traveling alone and at night, or in certain neighborhoods. 4. You are subject to an officer's misinterpretation of your answers, your attitude, or what the officer sees in your vehicle. You could become the victim of a corrupt act, such as planting drugs in your vehicle by an officer. You could be accused of using drugs because the cash in your possession has the odor of drugs. Officers can confiscate your cash and vehicle if there is some drug residue without proving you knew about or caused the residue to be there. Courts have recognized most currency in circulation has some discernible drug residue. It is reported that 80% of the assets confiscated by law enforcement do not lead to a criminal charge, but only a small percent is ever returned. Confiscation of assets has become a lucrative business for some police agencies and offers big incentives to increase roadblocks and speed traps. 5. Some states issue a seat belt violation fine against the driver even if the driver is using a seat belt but a passenger is not, and even if the driver did not know about it. Drivers, therefore, could easily become distracted while driving by a constant watch of passengers, both adults and children in the rear seat. 6. Primary enforcement is an easy way to enhance state revenue through fines. Also, additional income comes from the federal government in the form of grants (bribes) to pay the police to enforce the seat belt law. Such grants are used by the police as overtime pay while enforcing the seat belt law, which is why the police support primary enforcement laws. Such lucrative overtime pay helps relieve pressure for a police salary increase. And in some areas where job performance standards include a citation quota, seat belt violations offers easy compliance. 7. Some insurance companies target seat belt law violations as an excuse to increase rates even for drivers without an accident or moving violation record. In fact, even if you habitually use a seat belt but forget just once, that might be the time an officer stops your vehicle, thus your driving record is unjustly marred. 8. Some states level points against a driver's license for not using a seat belt in addition to a fine, which means a person is being punished twice for the same offense. Also, it means a driver's license could eventually be suspended for repeated offenses even if the driver has been a careful driver for years with no accident or moving traffic violation. 9. If you are medically exempted from seat belt use, your vehicle could still be stopped since an officer cannot know until you are stopped. This applies to drivers who are using a seat belt but a passenger is not using one because of an exemption. Even with a medical exemption, once the vehicle is stopped, the officer can begin routine interrogation, testing and visually looking for any kind of a violation of the law. Persons with medical exemptions are also subject to being stopped repeatedly during any travel route by other officers along the way. Also, providing an officer with your confidential medical records and exemption is a violation of your right of privacy. 10. It should be noted, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a federal agency, in a 1995 study, "Safety Belt Use Law &endash; An Evaluation of Primary Enforcement and Other Provisions," stated "The analysis suggests that belt use among fatally injured occupants was at least 15 percent higher in states with primary enforcement laws." 11. Primary enforcement is promoted as saving lives, however, stopping vehicles for non-seat belt use is only an excuse to arbitrarily and capriciously accuse people of traffic violations of one kind or another, thus issuing citations as a means of easily increasing revenue, as well as providing easy lucrative overtime income for the police. Primary enforcement has nothing to do with saving lives; has all to do with revenue enhancement at the expense of fleecing the motoring public. Conclusion Politicians have no authority to willingly and knowingly force some people to maim and kill themselves in certain kinds of traffic accidents using a so-called safety device, a seat belt harness, just because they hope others will be saved in other kinds of accidents merely by chance. The Constitution forbids the government from taking chances with a person's body, the ultimate private property. The government has no right to play Russian roulette with a person's life. Also, seat belts are an after-the-fact device. As such, not one penny of the millions of tax dollars spent in support of seat belt laws has ever prevented one accident. Conversely, because we feel safer wearing our seat belts, studies have shown that we tend to drive more recklessly. This is known as "risk compensation,." which is covered in more details in the 1995 book, Risk by Dr. John Adams, University College London, England. In a free society, if a person is injured or killed in a traffic accident because he/she freely choose to use or not to use a seat belt, that is a personal tragedy, as it is with all other kinds of freely chosen risks in life. That is freedom working. However, if a person is injured or killed in a traffic accident because the government forced that person to use a seat belt, that is tyranny working, and reflects injury and death by government. All seat belt laws must be repealed in order to restore true freedom in the U.S. The insidious nature of seat belt laws is further shown in the April 2001 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court which foolishly ruled that it is legal for a police officer to arrest, handcuff and jail a woman for not using a seat belt in the Atwater/Lago Vista case, including impounding her vehicle. We do not allow doctors to send the police over to our homes to check to see if we are following the doctors' health care orders and, if not, to issue a ticket as a punishment, so why do we allow politicians to send the police over to our autos, vans, and trucks to see if we are following the politicians' health care orders, that is, using a seat belt and, if not, to issue a ticket as a punishment? As it is with all other kinds of individual personal health care recommendations in life, there is nothing wrong with voluntary seat belt use; however, there is a great deal wrong with all state mandatory seat belt harness laws. References and Notes Adams, Ph D., John G. U.; Dept. of Geography, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London, WC1H GAP, United Kingdom; http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/~jadams; New Scientist magazine (United Kingdom), December 1985; title: "The Adams' heresy"; Books he wrote: Risk and Freedom, 1985 -- out of print -- check college libraries -- has a wealth of information against seat belt laws. Risk, 1995 -- can order through Amazon.com. Ergonomic magazine (UK) vol. 31, no. 4, p 407-428, 1988; title: "Risk homeostasis and the purpose of safety regulations." Society of Automotive Engineers (US): SAE publication no. 820819; (1982); title:. "Efficacy of seat belt legislation." Surveyor magazine (UK) 7 February 1991; tile: "Seat Belts: The Safety Myth." CATO Institute (US) Policy Analysis no. 335, March 4, 1999; title: "Cars, Cholera, and Cows" -- Can be downloaded: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-335es.html. Adomeit, Dieter, Technical University of Berlin, Institute for Automotive Engineering; Society of Automotive Engineers (US): SAE publication no. 791004 (1979), title: "Seat Design -- a significant factor for safety belt effectiveness." Ames, Ph.D., Bruce N; University of California, Berkeley, CA; bnames@unclink4.berkey.edu. Smithsonian magazine, titles: "Risk: Where do real dangers lie?"11-98; "How the body defends itself from the risky business of living" 12-95. National Center for Policy Analysis (Texas), NCPA Policy No. 214, title: "Misconceptions about environmental pollution, pesticides and the causes of cancer," 3-98. Toxicology Letters, (Penary lecture; Intl. Cong. Tox., Paris, July 1998), title: "Cancer prevention and aging delay by micronutrients." Social Philosophy & Policy Center, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, Lecture title: "Science and the Spontaneous Order," 1989.
American Journal of Surgery, titles: "Seat belt trauma to the abdomen"; 3-67; pp346,350 (lap-only belt); "The seat belt syndrome", 12-68; pp 831-3; "Bowel injuries from automobile seat belts," 3-72; pp 312-16. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America, Washington, D.C; Trial magazine, published by ATLA, April 1990, title: "Auto Seat Systems -- dangerous safety restraints?" by Buddy Rake, Jr, and Scott E. Boehm. (Comments by authors: "During a frontal collision, injuries to belted front-seat occupants can result because of two types of defective seat designs. ...") Berens, Michael J., The Columbus Dispatch (Ohio), November 17, 1996; title: "Wheels of Justice," Contact: http://www.dispatch.com/news/special/wheelsofjustice/wheelsofjustice.html. British Medical Journal, 11-23-68; "Seat belt injuries"; pp485-6. The Brookings Institute, 1986 book titled: Regulating the Automobile, (Conclusion: "The costs of programs to regulate automobile safety, fuel economy, and emissions are greater than their benefit.") Chapman, Stephen; Chicago Tribune, Columnist, "Fostering a nation of children" 1-27-85; "The seat belt law and privacy" 4-3-85. Dawesm R. F. H., and J. A. Smnallwood and I. Taylor; University Dept. of Surgery, Southampton Gen'l Hospital, UK. British Journal of Surgery, vol 73, February 1986; title: "Seat belt injury to the female breast." The Des Moines Register (Iowa), 6-18-92; (Cox News Service) title: "Safety officials accused of hiding facts on children killed in cars" (Lap only belts) Dunn, Jr., James A., Brookings Institute (Washington, D.C.); "Driving Forces -- The automobile, its enemies, and the politics of mobility," 1998. The Engineering Society, 400 Commonwealth Dr., Warrendale, PA. SAE Technical Paper Series 922515; title: "Mechanisms of Fracture in Ankle and Foot Injuries to Drivers in Motor Vehicle Crashes," by Diane C. Lestina...., Insurance Institute for Highway Safety; Reprinted from: 36th Stapp Car Crash Conference Proceedings, Seattle, Washington, Nov. 2-4, 1992. (Covers injuries with and without seat belt use.) Filley, Dwight, Senior Fellow in Market Principles, The Independence Institute (Colorado), Issue Paper No. 1-99 January 20, 1999; title: "Risk Homeostasis and the futility of protecting people from themselves." Galasko, Dr. Charles, professor of orthopedic surgery, University of Manchester; In an address during the Whiplash Association Disorders World Congress, Vancouver, Canada, under "Cost of seat belt related whiplash injuries rising," he noted that the number of patients with whiplash-related complaints more than tripled the year after seat belts were introduced in the UK in 1983. He also said awareness of the significance and impact of whiplash has been influence by under-recording and misclassification. He claimed as many as 45% of whiplash patients in the UK are not included in national injury data and suggested that there are probably close to 250,000 new whiplash patients in the UK every year. In the US, he said, the total probably approaches 1 million cases. Full details: http://www.cma.ca/cmaj/vol-160/issue-10/1425b.htm. The Canadian Medical Association Journal, May 18, 1999, published his presentation. Garbacz, Christopher, Ph.D.; St. Louis Post-Dispatch, OP-ED; Oct. 30, 1990, title: "Seat belts don't necessarily save lives." Population Research and Policy Review, 11-92; title: "Do front seat belt laws put rear seat passengers at risk?" Applied Economics magazine, Dec. 1990, title: "How effective is automobile safety regulations?" ditto, 24, 1992; title: "More evidence of the effectiveness of seat belt laws" vol. 24; 1992. Arkansas Gazette, Op-Ed; 5-13-91; title: "Seat belt laws pose risks of their own." Economy Inquiry magazine; April 1991, pp 310-316; title: "Impact of the New Zealand seat belt law." Economics magazine, letter to editor; 19, 1985; title: "A note on Peltzman's theory of offsetting consumer behavior." Garrett, John W. and Paul W. Braunstein, M.D; Journal of Trauma, May 1962; pp220-237; title: "The Seat Belt Syndrome." (Comments by authors: "Just as the use of penicillin has led to numerous examples of penicillin allergy or anaphylactic reactions, so in the use of seat belts, many untoward situations and injuries.") Greenberg, Ph. D., Stephen R., Journal of Forensic Sciences, January 1987, pp158; title: "Seat Belts and Human Rights: An Appraisal" Halter, Mark, (private citizen); Wisconsin Medical Journal, two letters to editor; title: "Do seat belts save lives?" 1995, vol. 94, no. 3; "Buckling up: Whose choice should it be?" 2001:vol. 100, no. 2. Highway Loss Data Institute, (part of the Insurance Institute For Highway Safety, Arlington, VA) title: "Seven County Crash Investigation" April 1992; (Concluded: ...the study "found no clear-cut evidence of comparable reductions" in overall injuries as reflected by accident claims.) Hodge, Charles J., (lawyer), and Joseph Hodge, M.D., Medical Trial Technique Quarterly, Summer 1995, pp642-649; title: "Trauma and Cancer Associated With Seat Belt Shoulder Restraint in Motor Vehicle Accidents." Institute For Injury Reduction, Post Office 375, Dunkirk, Maryland, (An organization run by trial lawyers); 2-1-90 News Media Release: Statement of Benjamin Kelly, President -- "Ending The Lap Belt Injury Epidemic." (Includes a list of 45 traffic accidents that occurred between June 1986 and October 1989, documenting the dangers of lap belts.) Insurance Research Council, Oak Brook, IL (Survey of auto injury claims in MI, NJ and PA); "Catastrophic Auto Injuries" June 1992. (Conclusion: Cost of catastrophic injuries are way up since 1988 through 1991&emdash;which covers the same time frame most states passed seat belt laws.) Investor's Business Daily, 11-13-96, title: "The truth about car air bags -- U.S. ignored data showing risks to kids, women," by John Marline. (This is similar to the DOT presently withholding full information from the public about the negative side of forced seat belt use, while giving widespread publicity for those saved by the belt.) Jacoby, Jeff, The Boston Globe, Mass., 8-25-94: title: "Unbuckling the voters"(Comments on voters repealing Massachusetts' seat belt law and legislators passing another seat belt law in defiance of the "will of the people." Kazman, Sam; Competitive Enterprise Institute; The CATO Review of Business and Government; Fall 1991; "Death by regulation" (On how federal fuel economy standards are killing people estimated to be between 2,000 to 4,000 additional deaths per year.) Washington Post, (D.C.), 2-27-92; title: "Death by Government," an editorial on CAFE standards resulting in an increase in highway deaths. Kidd, Devvy; Several articles on seat belt law opposition at http://www.devvy.com/seatbelts_20000131.html. Knox, Bob (Columnist, Sun-Sentinel newspaper, Ft. Lauderdale, FL), Readers Digest, 6-97; title: "Family Alert: How safe is your car?" Krajick, Kevin, Psychology Today magazine, 5-86; title: "Do seat belts kill?" Laberge-Nadeau, Claire, MD, Msc, CSPQ; Laboratory on Transportation Safety, Center for Research on Transportation, University of Montreal (Under a grant from AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety) title: "Neck Injuries Amongst Motor Vehicle Occupants Involved In a Collision," April 1993. (One notable conclusion: "Seat belted car occupants tend to suffer a higher proportion of neck injuries than unbelted occupants because while seat belts tend to prevent more severe head injuries, the belts make acceleration/deceleration of car occupant heads worse because of the sudden change of vehicle velocity.") Landen, Larry; Prof. Of philosophy, University of Hawaii; book title: The Danger Ahead: The Risks You Really Face on Life's Highways, Wiley & Sons, 1997. (Amason.com has examples of pages from the book. The book exposes the various scare tactics about the dangers in life used to mislead and confuse the public by various groups, such as the government, the news media and certain industries in pursuit of their vested financial interests, which is similar to the scare tactics used by government in defending the supposed need and benefit of seat belt laws.) Larder, D. R.; Twiss and Mackay; Accident Research Unit, The University of Birmingham, UK; title: "Neck Injury To Car Occupants Using Seat Belt." (Presented at the 29th Annual Proceedings, American Association For Automotive Medicine, October 7-9, 1985, Washington, D.C.) Levine, Prof. Elliott, University of Winnipeg, Canada; Mature Medicine magazine, (Toronto, Canada); Can download: http://www3.sympatico.ca/medicine ; title: "Determinants of driver fatality risk in front impact fixed object collisions." (Highlights of article -- 1. This study finds no benefit to seat-belted car drivers in head on crashes, but dramatic increases in deaths to the most vulnerable drivers; 2. Earlier studies showing net benefits from wearing seat belts are found to involve critical flaws.: 3. Seat belt legislation may have done more harm than good.) Winnipeg Free Press (Winnipeg, Canada); 1-21-92; OP-ED title: "Seat belts kill!" McKenzie, Prof. Richard B., University of California-Irvine; Oakland Tribune newspaper, 2-10-85, title: "Air bags, Safety belts and personal freedoms." National Safety Council, title: "Exploration of Impact Measures of Safety Belt Use Laws," 1990 report. (In the report it is stated: "In terms of frequency of cases, about 43,000 people were ejected from passenger cars in 1981, according to the National Accident Sampling System. Of these, about 6,000 were killed -- Clark & Surel, 1984. -- Such figures challenge the claim by seat belt law supporters that most ejections result in death.) Traffic Safety magazine published by NSC, March/April 1987; title "With Seat Belt Use Laws -- Exemptions Are The Rule." (NOTE: If the purpose of seat belt laws is to protect occupants in a traffic accident even against their will, exemptions given by state legislators violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Exemptions are not prohibitions against seat belt use for certain persons, but are a state granted freedom to a select few persons who have the state's protection to freely choose when, where to use or not to use a seat belt harness, which violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.) Nettler, Ph.D., Gwynne; Prof. emeritus, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. Now lives in San Diego, CA; Liberty magazine; May 1994, title: "Trafficking in Numbers." (Dr. Nettler concluded, neither side has accurate or reliable statistics because of the very nature of how traffic accident data are currently recorded and compiled.) Pappalardo, Kathleen M. (Former Regional Director, Highway Federation and former Project Coordinator, New Hampshire Highway Safety Agency). Her testimony before NH state legislature against passage of a seat belt law in 1985 as published by the Libertarian Party of San Bernardino County, CA; See at http://www.lpca.com/pappalar.htm. Peltzman, Sam (Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago); Journal of Political Economy, vol 83, no. 42, 1975; title: "The effects of automobile safety regulation." Robertson, Leon S., Ph.D., American Journal of Public Health, 11-74, title: "A controlled Study of the Effect of Television Messages on Safety Belt Use" (...shows that television campaigns do not have any effect on use of safety belts.) Nanlee Research and Yale University; paper title: "Highway Deaths: False PR on the Effects of PR." (Exposes South Carolina's 1988 false claim on the success of seat belt law enforcement reducing highway deaths ) Ross, Philip, Forbes magazine, 9-6-99, p72-73; title: "Safety may be hazardous to your health." Schonsheck, Jonathan (Le Moyne College, Syracuse, NY), Law and Philosophy Library (Kluwer Academic Publishers); vol 19, 1994, title: "On Criminalization -- An essay in the philosophy of the criminal law" (He opposes seat belt laws) Semmens, John, Heartland Institute, Chicago, IL; titles: "Air bags can kill you;" May/June 1996: Point of View Paper, "Hawaii's 'Successful' Seat Belt Law" 10-11-91. (His analysis disproves success); "Auto safety regulations: Hazardous to your health?" 1988; "Coercion is no cure for collision" 1-26-87. Paper presented at the Transportation Research Forum's 28th annual meeting, November 16-18 1987, San Antonio, Texas; title: "What if everything we know about highway safety is wrong?" Human Events, 5-30-87; title: "More rules don't always mean safer roads" The Freedman 7-92; title: "Do seat belt laws work?"; Can be downloaded: http://www.self-gov/freeman/920710.html. Sullum, Jacob, Senior editor, Reason magazine; Washington Times, June 16, 1999; title: "Proceed With Caution." Tampa Tribune newspaper (Florida) 7-11-88; title: "Injuries to seat belt users accelerate in Florida," by Preston Trigg, Staff Writer. (Author comments: "The number of motorists injured wearing seat belts in Florida jumped from 77,086 in 1988 to 124,362 in 1987, an increase of 62 percent. Similarly, the number of motorists injured who weren't wearing seat belts dropped from 111,637 to 62,376 over the same period.") Vitality magazine, 9-91; title: "Car seat alert: 20% of the children's car seats manufactured in the past 10 years are defective, but only 5.4% have been repaired or replaced." Wildavsky, Ph.D., Aaron, Institute of Government Research, College of Liberal Arts, University of Arizona; 3-13-78; title: "No-risk is the highest risk of all." On the Internet Search the Internet for: Medifus.com -- Medifocus Guides (Medical information for legal professionals) "Litigation: Seat belt Injuries Case"; http://members.aol.com.RevJohnK/seatbelt.html http://www.lpca.com (Click "positions," go to "seat belt law opposition") http://www.domelight.com/seatbelts1.html (Click "Spotlight Issues") Web site: "Killerbelts"; http://www.barvennon.com/seatbelt.html. "The Data" -- http://barvenon.comseatbelt/sbevidence.htm; NOTE: The author claims, "My web page establishes clear and unequivocal proof that wearing a seat belt in an urban area more than doubles the likelihood of the driver becoming a fatality." CATO Institute, http://wwww.cato.org; Besides the article by Dr. John Adams listed under authors, above, the Institute has other articles relating to breech of liberty covered in its publication "Regulations." Choice In Personal Safety (CIPS) -- An organization in England that is opposed to the seat belt law. Besides text information, it has a list of accidents involving injuries/deaths attributed to seat belt use. See http://useers.aol.com/forgood/seatbelt/. Defective seat belt system designs, including buckles, can be found by searching the Internet under "seat belt buckle" or
The Independence Institute, 14142 Denver West Parkway, Suite 185, Golden, CO 80401; "HB 1131:Seat belt Law Endangers Innocent," by Linda Gorman (HB refers to House Bill); http://www.i2i.orgSuptDoc/Backgrounders/2000/seatbelts.htm. "Dangerous Changes in Seat Belt Law," by William J. Holdorf; http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/OpEdArcv/2000/seatbelt.htm. "Mandatory Seat Belt Law Cause Dangerous Driving, and Invade Privacy." http://www.i2iorg/SuptDoes/Personal%20Freedom/MandatorySeatBeltLaws.htm. "Risk Homeostasis and the Futility of Protecting People from Themselves." http://i3i.org/SuptDoes/Personal%20Freedom/RiskHomeostasis.htm. Shane Foran, Safety Officer, Galway Cycle Campaign , Galway, Ireland. "Seatbelts Make Us Safer.....Right?" This article documents facts showing in the aftermath of seat belt legislation (outside U.S.), while fatalities of front seat occupants declined, fatalities of back seat occupants increased, as well as an increase in fatalities for cyclists and pedestrians. See at http://www.ucolick.org/~de/AltTrans/SeatbeltLaws.html. Also see http://www.barvennon.com/seatbelt/irish_letter.html and http://www.geocities.com/galwaycyclist/submission/update.html. Libertarian Party of San Bernardino County, CA has a web page with seat belt law opposition information. See at http://www.lpca.com. National Motorists Association, 402 West 2nd St., Waunakee, WI 53597; nma@motorists.org ; http://www.motorists.org; While this organization does not take an official stand in opposition to seat belt laws, it does give both sides of the issue publicity, such as letters to the editors and occasional OP-ED. For members, it has information how to conduct oneself in a traffic court. Other information on: http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/p-safety.html; http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/a-onslau..html; http://www.motorists.com/info/seat_belts.html. Judicial Decisions, Rulings, and Comments Review the hundreds of court ordered settlements against the auto makers since the advent of seat belt laws in 1985 for, directly or indirectly, causing or contributing to injuries and deaths of persons from seat belt use in traffic accidents which have resulted in the auto makers paying hundreds of millions of dollars to the injured or family of the deceased for the failure of a seat belt to save as promised by the government. Such costs are passed on by the auto makers to the cost of new autos sold, thus adding to the high societal cost of state mandatory seat belt harness laws. The U.S. Supreme Court stated unequivocally that every human being has a right to self-determination: "No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law." (Union Pacific Ry Co v. Botsford, 141 U.S., 250, 251 1891.) Further: "It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." (Justice Robert H. Jackson---- American Communications v. Douds, 339 US, 382, 442, 1950.)
Bill Holdorf is 75 years old and was an office manager for an insurance company controlling the administration and auditing of over 100 branch offices of the company. After 23 years with the company, he found out that top management didn't want him anymore and was forced to retire in 1984. He has been active lobbying for seat belt law repeal efforts since 1984 and has made contact with like-minded others throughout the U.S., Canada, England, Ireland, and Australia, which includes some politicians and professionals in academia who also oppose such laws.
|
|||||||
|
Politics Resource Center Main Page |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, & 2002-03 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.