A statistic recently pointed to by the Kansas Department of Transportation fuels an unfortunate stereotype: Only 52 percent of Kansas drivers of pickup trucks bother to buckle up. That’s more than 20 points below the national average of 73 percent for this rugged demographic, and far off the (still too few) 69 percent of Kansas drivers and front-seat passengers who wear seat belts these days. Rather than pass a primary seat-belt law, state lawmakers would like to think that all adults can be trusted to exercise common sense and use their vehicles’ most basic piece of safety equipment. If pickup drivers don’t think seat belts are a necessity, surely the people who love them can persuade them otherwise.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
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
32 Comments
… and Kansas pick up drives would like to think that state lawmakers realize that it is none of their business how a grown free person conducts his or her own personal saftey. They would also like to think that state lawmakers would have enough sense to realize that most people know full well they are acting as paid agents of the insurance industry.
I think the insurance companies should give a “buckle-up” discount. That way, those who choose NOT to buckle up can pay for their added cost of medical care with higher premiums. Otherwise, their bad choice is affecting MY wallet, and I don’t like that much!
Sam..Please document how “their bad choice is affecting” your wallet.
The ‘public burden’ theory of auto safety has been around for a while, and is not true. Assemblyman Richard Floyd in California first advanced it in his pursuit of a motorcycle helmet law, claiming unhelmeted, uninsured motorcyclists cost the state $60 to $80 million a year. When asked by the San Jose Mercury News about those figures, in an interview published May 3, 1991, Floyd admitted he made them up.
Compare welfare costs with uninsured accident victims, and you will see that the costs for caring for uninsured single mothers is many times higher than accident victims (Univ of S. Carolina, 1998).
This “public burden” theory is a bell that cannot be unrung..even tho it is false.
I just love that old chestnut kansassam. Some people will believe anything.
Yeah, buckling up is stupid. Oh, wait, I’d be dead or in a coma had I not been wearing my seat belt when someone pulled out in front of me and I t-boned them.
Jeff–
I am not disputing the value of seat belts or their use. I am just pointing out a fallacious argument.
Insurance companies pay MORE in claims.. they charge me MORE iun premiums.. period. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that!Why are there “good student” discounts and “non-smoker” discounts? It’s not an insurance conspiracy people.. it’s just economic fact… take in more money than you pay out, or go broke….
Exactly who besides you, has said buckling up is stupid Jeff?Your unfortunate experience is license to force people to make the same personal safety decisions that you make?While you consider people who do not use seatbelts stupid, there is a huge segement of people that do actually understand that this is pointed advertising, based on invented facts, for the sole purpose of padding the profit margins for insurance companies through force or intimidation. Nothing more, nothing less.
Ever seen your insurance rates go down because of any of these chestnuts kansassam. Of course not.Please explain exactly how you figure insurance companies should be able to use government agencies as their advertising and profit enforcement wing?
they don’t. It’s PUBLIC safety… people for people.
gotta go to work so I can afford those higher premiums….
Ah I see. Insurance agent. Have a good one.
It’s none of the State’s business as to whether I buckle my seat belt. My head. My windshield. As a competent adult, MY CHOICE. I didn’t assign the State the job of my mommy or nanny.
For kids, that’s a different story, and setting an example for your kids as you buckle them in is a good reason to buckle up too. And I don’t doubt that I’m safer with the belt than without it. But that’s still MY choice, not the State’s.
As someone who took a trip through a windshield, seat-belts are a great idea. I always use mine { except when I forget }
Seat belt laws have no place in a free society, as government should do it’s job, give us the information and we decide { the decider }. {ugh}
Freedom isn’t free.
Now, having said that: Buckel-up.
I think that if someone is injured in an auto accident, and was not wearing a seat belt, that fact should be allowed as evidence in KS civil court cases. The other party involved in the accident should be able to introduce evidence and argue that the failure to wear a seat belt caused or worsened the injuries.
LOL… a comedian… don’t give up your day job sooory.
Outlander… best idea yet!
Oh that sounds like it came from the land of Outlander alright.
Somebody hits me but fault is reversed if I don’t buckle up?
Sheesh
If Congress really wants to encourage seatbelt usage they will increase the fine for failure to wear a seat belt significantly. It is currently a $10 fine (no court costs) for an adult cited for no seat belt. $10 – that’s it!
But I agree with other opinions – I’m an adult. I can make good/bad decisions on my own and don’t need BigBrother watching over me.
Very good Outlander. That way the drunks insurance company can claim that it was not his negligence or the missle he was driving that caused the accident, but that vicious non conforming victim who’s at fault for not wearing his seatbelt and driving your insurance rates up. Sort of covers all the bases for you insurance agents doesn’t it.Insurance company doesn’t have to pay because the person who caused the accident was at fault, and the victims company doesn’t have to pay because the victim was at fault.God I love it when a scam comes together.
Hey, if you value the freedom to make your own choices, you should be willing to live with the consequences. Not buckling up exposes you to an increased risk of injury.
No one is ever going be able to argue that seat belt non-usage was a factor in causing an accident, only that it is a factor in causing or worsening the injury. The jury can give it whatever weight they choose, but they should be able to hear evidence and argument.
In your example, sooory, I doubt a jury would give it much weight.
There are what, about 30,000 motor vehicle deaths a year, some with, some without seat belts. (I have no clue of the percentage of fatalities, so will leave it at ’some’).
Our government wants to use its police power to force us to buckle up for our own safety.
There are approximately 400,000 smoking related deaths every year (according to the CDC), and our government subsidizes the tobacco industry.
Is something amiss here? Why am I skeptical of the claim that the government wants to “save lives”?
I remember when California passed the mc helmet law, and all these renegade chopped-Harley bikers started wearing Kaiser helmets, toy viking helmets with horns sticking out, plastic beanies with spinning blades, and other totally useless headgear: they took advantage of the fact that the new helment law didn’t have any design specifications. It was a hoot, especially when you’d see twenty of them doing a weekend group ride.
I wonder when they’re gonna pass a law requiring ranchers and recreationalists to wear protective headgear when they’re riding their horses.
I am of mixed feelings about this issue. On the one hand I am convinced that belts save lives; I came through a wreck barely hurt and am convinced it would have been much worse without the belts. On the other hand “to each his own.”
Perhaps one option would be to allow insurance companies to not pay for injuries if the person was not belted in. That might address the ’socialization of risk’ issue.
If insurance companies could opt out of payment if it was shown that a person was not wearing their seat belt then what happens if a seat belt fails?Sometimes in accidents the seat belt disengages and it appears that the seat belt was not in use. (This has happened to me personally – Ford has since done a recall for that model)So it becomes a matter of one’s word against another. Who do you believe?
Good point julie. However, since it has been shown that not wearing a seat belt increases the risk for injury then that act should constitute contributory negligence. In your case Ford would become the negligent party.
I didn’t know seat belts were so controversial.Helmet laws maybe….
Not gonna wear a seat belt because the bleeping state tells me I have to?Your life-long brain damage, providing you survive, not mine.Where’s Red Foreman when you need him?
I do have a problem with helmets. I rely heavily on peripheral vision and hearing when on a bike and don’t like anything that interferes with that.
Personally, I think seat belts are very important… seat belt “laws” are a waste of time. Noone cares about a $10 ticket that you only get if you are stopped for another reason. My wife got a seat belt ticket once. The nice officer handed it to me in the waiting room of the E.R. Since she went through the windshield and was in emergency surgery fighting for survival, she was “unavailable” to receive it…. very disheartening!On the other hand, like I said before.. if the insurance companies would discount premiums for those who wear seat belts.. that would be a good incentive to wear them!
Absolute agreement with you, Sam. The belts themselves are important, but the laws are not.
I read of a foreign visitor who was amazed at all the ‘tiny’ laws we have in this country… micro management on a massive scale.
Two thoughts:1) Having had two debilitating accidents in pre-1985 cars (that was before NTSA required seatbelts that fit people with larger than 36 inch waists), I think seatbelt laws should only apply to post-85 cars. Seatbelts don’t work if you can’t wear them.2) It has been my experience–especially in Wichita–that the newness of a pickup truck is generally inversely proportional to the driving ability of its owner.
I was in a car accident and if it weren’t for me throwing my seat belt off at the last minute I would be dead right now. Yet I was pinned with a $20 fine for not wearing a seat belt. This nation is getting even more pathetic if we can’t even make the decision of risking our own lives.