New highway data shows Kansas still lagging much of the nation in seat-belt use. Kansans’ use rate of 69 percent was the sixth-lowest rate in the nation, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
There’s a simple solution: Pass a primary seat-belt law.
Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia have passed “primary” belt laws, which allow a law enforcement officer to pull over a driver solely for not wearing a seat belt. Primary laws have a demonstrated track record of boosting seat-belt use by an average of 11 percent.
This is about saving lives. In 2004, 390 people died in Kansas while riding in cars and trucks, and 62 percent were not wearing their seat belts.
An added fiscal incentive: Kansas has a one-time chance to get additional federal transportation dollars — more than $11 million — if it passes a primary seat-belt law.
The Kansas Legislature should get this done next session.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
49 Comments
Gee Randy, if it’s about saving lives why don’t you advocate banning automobiles? That would save lives.
I often wonder how some people got to where they are in life. The Eagle editorial board is no exception.
A more important need is a law banning cell phone conversations while driving. Every day, and I mean every day, I see multiple near accidents by cell phone users. I hear lots of stories about distracted drivers with cell phones. I wonder if statistics exist on actual accidents caused by cell phone usage?
“Nanny laws” are another case of the government overstepping its bounds. Consider this situation:
The government says it cares about your safety, so much so that it will arrest you, fine you, put points on your license that may ultimately ban you from driving (if you get enough) all because the government wants to save your life.
What is next, mandatory blood pressure checks, government mandated cholesterol levels? After all, heart disease kills many, many times more people than motor vehicle accidents.
Our government is out of control when it uses its police power to ‘protect us from ourselves”.
Ray,when a person is seriously injured in a car wreck and their insurance runs out, guess who pays for their continuing health care? (Hint: taxpayers) It happens more often than you may realize. So I guess the government does indeed have a vested interest in trying to keep the damage to a minimum.
“Our government is out of control when it uses its police power to ‘protect us from ourselves”.
Oh? Do you favor legalizing drugs? Arguably, the only one a drug user is endangering is themselves. What’s the difference?
Massive difference, XXX. People high on drugs cause car accidents. People high on drugs shoot/hurt others. People with drug addictions rob/steal to be able to support their habits.
Not a valid comparison.
The ‘public burden’ theory has been around for over 20 years, and has been touted as a reason to deny more and more rights all the time. Problem is, states spend huge amounts more on social costs like welfare than they do on caring for injured motorists. Yet, there is no hue and cry to end welfare, is there?
So, XXX, I take it you would support governmental required diet and exercise programs? Mandatory physicals and punishments for fat people? How about fining/jailing smokers who cause an estimated 400,000 deaths a year?
Where does the “protect ourselves from ourselves at all costs” stop?
LOL, Ray, If I supported all of that, I’d be in deep trouble!An observation: I’ve known a lot of dopers over the years. I’ve never known personally any doper who ever shot/hurt anybody. I’ve never known a doper who robbed anyone or stole anything.And each one of these instances could be applied to alcohol, a legal drug.Granted, dope is a very poor choice, but so is alcohol, and I personally see very little difference in either. But back to the subject.I don’t like seatbelt laws either, but like a lot of other laws, I think they’re for the greater good.Mixed feelings on laws to protect us from ourselves. Sometimes, you gotta ask…Is it just God’s way of cleaning the gene pool? I’d be the first to agree that some people are just so stupid, they shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce.
I know “dopers” who rob and steal to support their habits, and I’ve known “dopers” who have caused incredible hurt to their children and other loved ones. No drug is harmless.As far as a seat belt law, it’s a good idea, just like helmet laws. The taxpayer pays plenty in taking care of people who are too careless to take care of themselves. In the hospital we referred to motorcycles as “donorcycles” because that’s where a lot of the organs for transplants came from, riders who chose not to wear a helmet. Lucky ones died, others spent the rest of their life in a vegetative state on life support provided by tax dollars. In no way does it infringe on someones “rights” by fining people for not wearing a seatbelt. Pick your battles more carefully when it comes to civil liberties, common sense is not a bad thing and a threat to no one’s freedom.
Driving is a not a constitutional right.
The state has every right to make it as safe as possible. Buckling up a seat belt takes mere seconds and is much less onerous than stopping at red lights and other traffic rules that we must obey for the safety of all.
Plus the act of clicking a seat belt might remind people of the need to drive safely.
It’s a tiny little law that we can all live with.
Let’s do it.
Scribe has it right on this one. The key words are constitutional right. There are many excellent reasons it is not a right to drive. It is also the states call on restrictive seat belt laws. While this one is restrictive, it is certainly within the states rights to enforce it. Wearing a seat belt saved my sorry tush, so I’ll be wearing mine any time I’m driving.
Alcohol and driving have so many laws that anyone driving while drunk is indeed a moron, but it still happens. That’s why there are checkpoints set up. To catch the morons that do drive while drunk. They are literally saving peoples lives by taking these morons off the road. I don’t see a problem with fining people who don’t wear their belts.
Damoon, I guess I used to know higher class dopers than you do, lol. Seriously, if you know somebody who’s stealing and robbing, shouldn’t you turn them in? By not doing so, aren’t you an accessory after the fact?
I don’t like seatbelts, but I wear mine so I don’t get a ticket.
JM, Your seat belt saved you…there’s no question that God saved your golf clubs, LOL!
Ray, I had a friend who got slammed head-first into highway fencing because he wasn’t wearing his damn selt beat. Stupid? Yeah. People do stupid things.
I’m not in favor of throwing people in jail, but I think simply enforcing–and maybe increasing– the $10 fine is worthwhile. I’d rather have visited my friend in the hospital than attended his funeral.
Damoon–
Obviously you are of the blind faith that helmets save lives at all times in all places. Care to view the stats/facts?
Recent report in Florida showed that a higher percentage of people wearing helmets died than did those not wearing helmets. Facts don’t fit the stereotype, do they?Or, how about NHTSA’s own figures that prove conclusively over 22 years that there is NO measurable differences in death rates between helmet law and non-helmet law states.
According to the feds own standards, there is not a helmet that can withstand an impact sustained at anything over 20 miles per hour. These things are supposed to be helpful?
Rage, anecdotal stories abound everywhere. Children die in bicycle accidents–should we just ban bicycles? Pedestrians die every day–many of head injuries, Damoon. Shall we require pedestrians to wear helmets at all times? Or just make it illegal to walk?
Face it..living is dangerous. Our government cannot, nor should it try, to protect its citizenry from all ills at all times. If they want to get serious about saving lives, lets put helmets on everyone in cars–after all, seat belt use notwithstanding, the leading cause of death in car accidents is head injury.
Power to the government..stay home in your plastic bubble, the government will feed and protect you?
Sigh. . . I don’t have time for this.
No, Ray, I don’t want the friggin’ government to protect me from myself. If fact, I favor legalizing currently illegal substances.
Your analogies are forced and moronic.
A small fine as a reminder to not do something stupid ain’t exactly stormtroopers breaking down the friggin’ door. Oh wait; I forgot: you’re completely cool with THAT.
Good one Rage, LOL!
Ray–please continue to ride your motorcycle without a helmet.
We need more organ donors for people who value their lives more than helmetless motorcyclists do.
Whenever I see some smart-ass riding a big bike without a helmet, I think, “now there’s Darwin’s ’survival of the fittest’ in action.”
Nanny laws are a way for the state to make money thru fines and create more burecracy creating a need to raise taxes to fund said burecracy. Is the current jail full because of serious criminals or of petty crimes that should’nt even be crimes. Throwing people in jail for not wearing a seatbelt will just be an excuse to build a new jail since it is already full now. As for Helment laws they really don’t do anything. Helments are only for falling off your bike which if your prone to do you shouldn’t be riding. get hit by a car or crash at a high speed a helment won’t save you. Besides helments cut down a riders side vison and cause extra fatituge on long rides or when its hot.
I must confess, riding a Harley with a helmet kind of blows the image.
I’ve heard reasonable arguments on both sides of the helmet debate.
Not so with seat belts.
Sorry, as a nurse, I’ve seen up close and personal what can happen when someone who rides a motorcycle doesn’t wear a helment. I also have a good friend who is alive today because he had one on when his cycle got sideswiped by a car (he took out a steel fence post with his head). My nephew is alive today only becuase he was wearing a helment when a car made a left turn in front of him (she “didn’t see him”), he spent 4 days in intensive care but he survived. I lost control once on a cycle when I was 17 and I’m very grateful I had my helment on also.I don’t know where you guys got your facts, but I can’t believe that wearing a helment doesn’t make any difference.Ray, of course it won’t save you in any situation, neither will a seat belt. I never said that. Let me ask you, would you want your child to ride a motorcycle without a helment or drive a car without their seatbelt on? What is more important: their safety or their constitutional right to not to wear any protection because they “won’t look cool” or they can’t “feel the wind in their hair”?Why don’t you ask a nurse or a doctor who works in an emergency room what they think about helment and seat belt laws? Sometimes the ones who work in the trenches know a little more than someone who does a survey trying to debunk the need for protection when operating a vehicle.
I agree with you, NoBush. Those who don’t use protection are not suitable to pass their genes on. Natural selection at work!
Helmets have saved a lot of people’s lives. Yes, several people have laid comatose in hospital beds, or paralyzed until they die a few years later. Good thing they were wearing a helmet.
Several of you genius types have obviously never ridden a motorcycle to begin with.
Da,Many years ago, I had a friend, a bright young man, whose motorcycle was hit by a truck right next to Wesley. They used his helmet to carry his scrambled brains into the hospital and pour them back in his head. Believe me, they didn’t do him any favor! His remaining years were spent in utter pain and drug-induced fogs, abandoned by his family to a series of group homes that were unable to cope with him. If it were me, death would have been vastly preferable! A helmet may keep you breathing, but it doesn’t necessarily save your life.
Are you saying it’s better to make sure you’re going to die than to chance you might survive and be a vegetable? Not much of a choice, Todd!When I was young I drove and rode on motorcycles many times, but wouldn’t dreamed of doing it without a helment.Now that I’m older and wiser, I’d kill my kids if I ever caught them on one, helment or no helment.
True, Jed. Some things are worse than death. But a helment is going to improve your chances of surviving and having a life. It worked for me and several people I know.
Da,Maybe what’s needed is a helmet with a living will printed on the side. Might even make a few kids think twice!
There are worse ways to die than going out on “hot iron”. Bury me on my Harley, boys, and put on my tombstone,”He died in a blaze of glory”hahahahahahahaha!
(This message brought to you by Harley-Davidson Motorcycles)
Just to clarify: I’m not sure about the degree of protection and/or pitfalls of motorcycle helmets. But at least I’ve heard relevant objections, i.e., in terms of safety and controlling the bike. That’s far different from strictly ideological objections.
Ok, I’m back to serious again. Actually, helmet technology has come a long way since I started riding 40 years ago. Of course, you get what you pay for. Buy a cheap helmet and all the bad things you’ve read come into play. Bad vision field, hot, uncomfortable, and likely to break your neck in any kind of crash. Get a good helmet, and you have good vision, they’re comfortable, and the impact capacity is tremendous if the helmet is properly fitted. I flipped a 4-wheel ATV at 60 mph a few years ago. Hit the ground upside down head first still mounted on a 450 pound machine. My helmet went through my shoulder and broke it in 5 places, but it protected my head. I saw stars for a minute, but never lost consiousness. Sure, if you hit a semi head on on the highway, you’re toast, but a lot of the accidents that cause severe head trauma would otherwise be minor if you’re wearing a helmet. If your head hits the pavement at 30 miles an hour, you’re a veggie. The same accident with a helmet is going to be scrapes and bruises, and maybe a broken bone or 2. But you get over that. I rode for a couple of years without a helmet. It interfered with my past the shoulder leingth hair. But one day, I had a long talk with my Mom. I cut off the hair and got a good helmet. If you won’t think of yourself, think of your family. They may have to live with your bad judgement, too.
Does the fact that I’ve never seen a race car driver fail to wear a seatbelt or harness, or a mortorcycle racer fail to wear a helmet, mean anything?
wilson,You havn’t been watching the right reality shows:-)
Wilson…
My point exactly. Race car drivers also wear helmets. Let us force helmets on everyone in cars. If they are so good, and the goal is to save lives no matter what, and race car drivers wear them, let us force helmets on everyone. People in cars, pedestrians, horseback riders, skateboarders, etc.
And while we are at it, let us arrest and jail anyone who is overweight. After all, they die too. Let us fine anyone who smokes, because they not only harm themselves but they pollute the air.
It is all about saving lives no matter what the cost. Either you are for saving ALL lives all the time or you are not. Picking on one group–motorcycles–and claiming that you are more concerned about their lives than anyone else makes no sense.
Either helmets for everyone or nobody. Anything else is pure and simple discrimination.
Well, Ray, that’s a variation on the argument “why don’t we set the national speed limit to 20 mph?” You’re arguing by extremes.
It would be impractical and nearly impossible to enforce. People with various health problems (neck injuries, breathing problems,etc.) would find them hard to endure. Seat belts are a lot easier to use, reasonably comfortable, and many (albeit not nearly all) head injuries are averted by keeping the people from turning into projectiles. Air bags have been a plus, too (well, except for some small women. . . )
I find it fascinating that you get so worked up over small safety rules, but don’t care about government watching you like a lab animal, or dragging people off to secret torture dens based on minimal suspicion, as long as it’s not you (yet). Maybe you define freedom in strictly physical terms. Well, there’s something to that: If they started fining people $100 or taking them to jail, I’d be completely on your side.
P.S. XXX, thanks for the info on the new bike helmets. It’s been quite a while since I’ve ridden. I always wore a helmet, and I didn’t like it.
Rage-I fail to see where you get the idea I am in favor of the government dragging people off to secret dens or watching every persons’ every move.
My previous posts on that topic were more about the manic paranoia about privacy. I don’t care if someone knows what library book I read last summer. I just question the harm about such. But, if you remember, I do not support/condone/or excuse the illegal activites of the president.
Since when is arguing to extremes a bad thing when the stated goal is to SAVE LIVES at all costs? If SAVING ONE LIFE is worth it, then we need to go to extremes.
All traffic fatalities, about 30 to 35,000 per year. About 3,000 motorcycle fatalities (over half wearing helmets). Compared with over 470,000 heart/weight related deaths, and an estimated 400,000 smoking related deaths.
Talk about extremes…seems priorities are a little mixed up? Or is it just easier to legislate ’safety’ when it doesn’t affect most people?
Ray–take a statistics course. In the long run, everyone’s chances of dying are . . . oh . . . about . . . 100 percent.
If you prevent someone from dying in a car crash by mandating seat belt use, a clear effect would be to increase the number of deaths from heart disease.
Because everyone will die of something, unless something else kills them first.
What we’re talking about here is preventable deaths due to car crashes. Comparing that to other causes of death is a red herring.
H-E-L-M-E-T
Not “helments.” Helments must be what they pass out at the cash register, when you pay your check, at Hal’s Jalapeno Joint & Gift Shoppe.
Thank you.
Laws should be fact based. I’m sure that it is a fact that deaths in car and motorcycle races are significantly reduced by wearing helmets and, in the case of race car drivers, by wearing those new shoulder/helmet braces that prevent basal skull fractures.
However, it’s not clear to me that there would be a noticeable reduction in car related deaths at normal speeds by having drivers wear helmets. There most certainly is evidence that wearing seat belts reduces deaths, and so they are required. Evidence suggested that the force with which safety bags deployed caused deaths for small women and children, so now we are modifying the manner in which they deploy as well as the advice we give for who should be in the front seats of autos.
It has also been shown that helmets save the lives of motorcycle and bicycle riders. It has also been shown that leather helps to save motorcyclists, but I tend to doubt if leather would do much for bicyclists. Hence, it seems to me that motorcyclists and bicyclists should be required to wear helmets, and I might even require the wearing of some leather by motorcyclists.
Brian..
Your “facts” are wrong. The death rate per 100 accidents (the most reliable measurement of fatality) has not changed in states with or without helmet laws. California enacted a helmet law in 1992, at the time it had a 3.87 death per 100 accident rate. In 2003, the death rate (with a helmet law) was 3.96–statistically the same even though just slightly higher.
The region with the highest death to accident ratio, 13.47 in Washington DC has had a helmet law for years. The state with the lowest death to accident ratio, 2.98, is Wyoming, without a helmet law.
The total number of deaths drop with a helmet law enactment. So does the total number of registrations–very common when a helmet law is enacted. Tens of thousands (in CA’s case, it was over 240,000) bikes were not registered again. Fewer bikes on the road means fewer deaths, period. In CA, the death rate dropped about 28%, while registrations dropped over 32%, so the helmet law did not improve the death to registration ratio, either.
Check the facts, do not make up your mind based on anecdotal stories or “he was saved by a helmet” fables. The numbers are very clear…as in Florida, more deaths to people who were wearing helmets. This is provided by the Florida Department of Transportation.
Facts, people…facts. Not made up imaginary “helmets save lives” claims. One claim, deaths per mile traveled put out by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is rather suspect, tho. They claimed that there were zero miles traveled by motorcycle in South Dakota (and 10 other states) for the last 6 years. So, any deaths would be a huge measurement on ‘miles traveled’, where they report none.
Fact. Helmets do not prevent accidents. Close to 75% of 2 vehicle accidents were the fault of the car driver (UCLA study). “I didn’t see him” is the common refrain.
Facts. Granted, there are people here who’s minds are made up, and they do not want to be confused with facts and truth. So be it. The truth is simple, helmet laws are about politics, not safety.
Ray,
Check out….
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/
data from the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, that says, in part,
“Evaluation of the Repeal of Motorcycle Helmet Laws in Kentucky and Louisiana HS 809 530 (posted 10/28/03)This evaluation looked at changes in helmet usage, fatalities, and traumatic brain injuries after these states repealed their mandatory motorcycle helmet laws in 1998 and 1999. Helmet use dropped from near 100 percent compliance in both states to the 50 percent range after repeal of the universal helmet laws. Injuries, fatalities, and fatality rates increased substantially in both states at far greater rates than the national average.”
and for a more detailed look…
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/TraffTech/index.htmhttp://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/kentuky-la03/LawChgKy.html
So, please, if you’re going to try to play statistician, then quote the sources. Simply because 2 average numberfs are close, that doesa not mean they are statistically insignificant. You must report on standard deviations, t-test statistics (if applicable), etc.
I’ll take my information from the skilled statristicians at the nhtsa who collect and analyze these types of data daily.
And Ray,
Since I doubt you’ll even bother to look, here is a part of the summary of the report cited above….
“The 1998 universal helmet law repeal in Kentucky and the 1999 repeal in Louisiana produced similar effects. Observed helmet use dropped from nearly full compliance under the law to the 50 percent range without the law. Motorcyclist fatalities increased in the near term by sizeable amounts-by over 50 percent in Kentucky and over 100 percent in Louisiana. Injuries also increased substantially in both states. The rates of fatalities and injuries per registered motorcycle increased in both states following the helmet law repeals.
The experience in Kentucky and Louisiana is similar to the experience in Arkansas and Texas, two other states that have repealed universal laws in recent years, leaving little doubt that such repeals have demonstrable negative safety consequences. The weight of the evidence is that helmets reduce injury severity, that repeal of helmet laws decreases helmet use, and that states that repeal universal helmet laws experience increased fatalities and injuries. There is also evidence that serious head injuries increase and that treatment costs rise. Conversely, states that have adopted or reenacted universal laws have experienced declines in motorcyclist fatalities and injuries.”
Brian..
I am familiar with the one sided approach of NHTSA. They seemed to ignore the increase in registrations, didn’t they? Common. In Texas, for example, the repeal of their helmet law led to a sharp increase in accidents and deaths. What they conveniently forget to mention is that there are many more motorcycles on the road.
Based on that analysis, Brian, North Dakota has the fewest deaths, so it is the safest place to ride, yes? Ignore that it has the shortest riding season and the fewest motorcycles in the country. That is as silly as ignoring the fluctuations in registrations, as NHTSA does and you have fallen for.
Um, Ray, that’s why you do things on a normalized basis..to take care of things like increased registrations.
You guys just slay me. Everything is “biased” when it doesn’t fall the way you want. You’ll throw numbers out with no idea where they came from (aside from a “no helmet” web site), what they mean, how they were calculated, and what was controlled. LOLOLOL
Normalized? Fine. You have your mind made up, I will not try to confuse you with facts.
My stats come from UCLA, Harborview Medical Center, the University of Virginia, the US Department of Transportation, Texas Department of Motor Vehicles, the Florida Department of Transportation, the California Highway Patrol and DMV, among other places.
Your insinuation is insulting.
Ray,
If you think that the only way to do statistics is by keeping the sample population constant, then you have a pretty naive view of statistics.
If you have 1,000 motorcyclists registered and 2 die in a year, then the rate is 2 deaths per thousand per year. If the population of motorcyclists goes up to 10,000, then all things being equal (no changes in the law, for example), then I might expect 2 deaths per thousand per year, or 20 deaths. If I actually have 30 deaths or 10 deaths, then I need to check the statistics against a t-test for sample population size. If I still can’t explain the discrepancy away, then it MIGHT be real.
So, when you change the law, and more registrations occur, you still normalize the death rate by the total number of motorcyclists. If the number increases or decreases relative to the years preceding the law change, then something happened….And nhtsa says when they do this in helmeted states that went unhelmeted, the fatality and injury rates went UP.
So, I’d suggest you talk tyo them about their methodology and then talk to the people who are giving you your fanciful numbers. Ask for an explanation of HOW the numbers were arrived at.
I know how nhtsa did their data and I agree with it. Can you say the same for yours, or are you just parroting back numbers you’ve heard and want to believe?
Look Ray, it’s just common sense. In ANY accident, your chances are better if your head is protected, whether it’s a helment, seat belt, air bag, whatever. This isn’t rocket science.
Okay, Ray, I don’t want to drag the discussion off-topic, so I’ll take your word for it. And I have a long memory.
See you in January, bud.
By the way, I threw out $100 as a example. I think even $25 would be too much.
And I’m also opposed to stopping people for seat belt infractions alone, as that would make a great pretext for harrassment.
It seems to be common sense…when your head hits the road at anything over 10 miles an hour…your skull is gonna get pretty messed up.
When I fell off my motorcycle head first I was happy to have my helmet on.
However, my ol buddy Al didn’t have his helmet on when he crashed at 2 in the morning. Somehow he managed to crawl two blocks to a phone and call 911.
He didn’t remember the accident.
Actually he doesn’t remember his name is Al. Al didn’t remember his co-workers weeks later, when his brother came to work to pack up Al’s stuff, to take him back to Iowa to live with his family.
But, at least Al didn’t sweat, or suffer from cut down side vision when he used to ride his bike.
Before we ban cell phones while driving, let’s make it illegal to read the newspaper, or four page letters while we drive.
Have a happy and safe New Year.
Brian–nicely done. You explained the essentials of statistics very well . . . not easy to do in a blog, heh.
You’re right too that NHTSA would not likely overlook increases or decreases in N of registrations. Also it would be bizarre that the N of registrations went up or down drastically in a single year.
If insurance run out the taxpayer has to foot the bill, if too many people get caught and go to jail, the taxpayer has to foot the bill for the new jail, all the while paying the ever rising cost of insurance…hummm we pay no matter what, and not even get the common curtsy of a reach around.
“He that would sell his liberty for a little peace, will get neither liberty nor peace.”
B. Franklin
Maybe the state shouldn’t be required to foot the bill in the first place. I think its the idiot that chose not to wear their seat belt that should be held responsible- maybe it’ll teach them to wear their seat belt if they have a $10,000 medical bill sent to them!