Mandating Seat Belt Usage vs. Freedom of Choice
SOC120: Introduction to Ethics and Social Responsibilities
1
How do you feel when you are told what you will or will not do? You may be told that it is for your own good, but who has the right to decide what is or is not good for you? After all who knows you better than you do? This brings me to the topic of my discussion. Even though there are some statistics that may show a lower rate of injury or death if you wear a seat belt when in an automobile accident, I do not feel that the government has the right to make wearing a seat belt mandatory for adults because by making seat belts mandatory it takes away from our right to freedom of choice, and wearing a seat belt does not eliminate the risk of injury or death as people have been injured and/or killed due to wearing a seat belt
Current seat belt law originated from federal legislation in the 1960s that made it mandatory for all automobile manufacturers to include seat belts in their vehicles as a standard feature. Originally, the purpose of a seat belt was not to protect the occupants in the case of a crash, but rather to physically keep them in the vehicle, as driving was bumpy business.
However, in today’s times, mandatory use of a seat belt falls under various states purview. Each state implements its own laws regarding enforcement of seat belt use. Forty-nine states have adult seat belt laws as of 2009. New York was the first state to pass seat belt laws in 1984 and other states followed suit. In 1994, North Dakota became the last state to pass such a law. Currently, New Hampshire is the only state that does not mandate seat belt use for adults (Sefcik, L, 2010).
This issue touches on et...
... middle of paper ...
...ults because the bill of rights guarantees each of us the right to the freedom to care for one’s health and person, and freedom from bodily restraints or compulsions. The constitution, after all, was written for a reason. It was to protect our freedoms and rights in individual matters of choice, and to prevent the tyranny of others in dictating those highly personal choices, and to prevent our leadership from unduly legislating excessive societal oppressions. Is this not what the passage of the seat belt law has done?
References
Sefcik, Lisa, 2011, Seat Belt Law History, eHow.com, Retrieved April 7, 2011 From:
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5008257_seat-belt-law-history.html
Mosser, Kurt (2010). Ethics and Social Responsibilities. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Retrieved
From: https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUSOC120.10.2
A great deal of bills have been written and passed as legislation under the pretense that they would better outline the citizen’ rights and ensure their freedoms. Yet occasionally these laws are created with disregard to what is stated in our Constitution. At times they distort and twist the original meaning of the work, counter acting the purpose of creating the Amendments. The intention of Amendments was to be an outline of the rights of the people. They were to ensure that there would not be a repeat of what the framers had experienced when they set out on their mission to draft a document that would govern our country for years to come. Little by little our elected officials have been discounting our Constitution. There are many resulting repercussions; the most dear to everyone being the individuals rights. The end result of these interpretations being that our people are hurt, as we are slowly being stripped of our rights as U.S. citizens.
In order to operate a motor vehicle, you must be 16, by this age the driver should be responsible enough to make right decisions. Yet drivers make poor decisions, they do not take into consideration the bans and law prohibiting them to text behind the wheel. In 2009, Car and Driver preformed an experiment showing that texting while driving is more dangerous than being intoxicated behind the wheel. Texting bans have been proven to be lasting only a short time. People will react to a ban, but soon after will fall right back to their habits behind the wheel.
Privacy comes at a cost. It brings people who fight for the people the privacy of others when it is violated together. Cops not being able to search when they seize a cell phone makes them risk their lives because how people these days are, there could be bombs in the phone. Even though this amendment was ratified, people to this day still don’t have privacy they rightfully deserve. This effects me because I’m able to keep special information to myself. Also, if a police pulls over a family member and ask for their phone to investigate without giving a proper reason or having a warrant, that family member could say no. If a police hasn’t given you a good reason to hand something over, you have the right to resist or else the police are being unconstitutional. This amendment gives people the safety to do what they want(that’s legal). It also makes life better, but harder. Life is harder with this amendment because you have to watch out for who you trust that they won’t do anything to jeopardize your safety. This is relevant because a man in Indiana was tracked down by a GPS. It didn’t violate his 4th Amendment because the police got a warrant to put a tracking device in his mom’s car. This case represents how technology gives advantages and disadvantages. An advantage was that they were able to track him down for a burglary. The disadvantage would be that if they hadn’t gotten a warrant, he could have filed a lawsuit against
Since the Bill of Rights was ratified, there has been constant change in the world and therefore all the amendments have been tested and questioned. Many people in the past and in modern day, say that “a man 's house is his castle” and therefore that man has the right to protect his house and effects. That protection goes for anyone that wants to inflict harm in the person or property. It also extends to law enforcement and the government, not allowing them to conduct unreasonable searches and seizures.
In North Carolina, the “Click It or Ticket” program was put into place in 1993 by former Governor Jim Hunt to increase safety belt and child safety use rates through stepped up enforcement of the state’s safety belt law. According to North Carolina’s safety belt law all drivers and front seat passengers over the age of 16 are required to wear safety belts. Children less than age 16 are covered under the North Carolina Child Restraint Law. This law requires that children must be buckled up no matter where they are seated in the vehicle. Violators of the safety belt law are issued tickets and are subject to a fine of $25 plus $50 court costs. These violations have been defined as “infractions” and are not entered on driving records. In addition to this, effective January 1, 2005, any child less than 8 years old or 80 pounds in weight must ride in a booster seat. Violations of this law will result in a $25 fine plus court costs as well as having 2 points placed against driver’s license. However, drivers cited for this violation of this law for a 5,6, or 7 year old will be able to have the charges dismissed if they present proof to the court that they have acquired an appropriate restraint for that child. Statistics have been gathered on safety belt use since this program began and has shown that seat belt use has increased from 65 percent to 84 percent. It has also shown that fatal and serious injuries in North Carolina have been cut by 14 percent. Resulting in a savings of at least $135 million in health care related costs. Other positive ef...
... liberties so inflicting upon one and another from person to person seems like a useless loop. The government is supposed to provide for the people, and the Fourteenth Amendment is so universal that, even when written in 1860s, it has served as a cornerstone for some of the most significant cases in United States History.
...f such a decision, the government has aright to step in and help the person. This is because at this understanding of the situation, the person is not capable of making a decision that he would likely consent to at after fully understanding the situation. As in the seat belt case, often times, a person does not fully understand that not wearing a seat belt contradicts his true desires and that no possible good or benefit can come from not wearing it. However, when a person is making a rational decision between two things that he values, he is the only person that can decide which is best for him. An important condition to remember in this conclusion is that all of this is assuming that no other individuals are being harmed or put at risk by the actions of these people. Under this condition I have come to the conclusion that there do exist certain circumstances where the government has a right to legal paternalism. These circumstances include times when an individual is unable to make a rational and logical decision for himself either because he does not fully understand the issue or because he is unable to logically assign value to specific possible consequences of a decision.
... believe that there should not be texting or phone usage while driving from any age group, young or old. There is some many reasons why everyone should not use their phones while driving. The three main reasons what I have talked to you about today is why people should not text and drive: There are so many people that get hurt or killed, Society’s negative feels about this problem and What can be done to prevent this. This is why texting while driving should be illegal is because it causes horrible wrecks.
...ts, detailed explanation, and the First Amendment to show how the policy of the armbands goes against the First Amendment. As for Justice Hugo Black, he uses facts and other case decisions to explain why the policy is permissible under the First Amendment. Yet, Justice Black does not explain, in elaborate detail, the facts included nor a strong reasoning behind why he believes the policy is allowed. While Justice Abe Fortas and Justice Hugo Black did include strong points, Justice Abe Fortas was more convincing with his argument. For Justice Abe, every point connected, and the main points introduced were further developed through the case facts, the District Court’s decision, and other case decisions. There is a fluency that Justice Fortas had, which was not present in Justice Black’s dissenting opinion. Justice Black seemed jumpy, and his organization was confusing.
Many people may choose not to wear a seatbelt because they don’t understand how and why they work. To begin with seatbelts are the first line of defense one has against an injury in a crash.
Several states have a law requiring anyone on a motorcycle to wear a helmet. However, some states have laws that
We have all heard the excuses before, "It's uncomfortable, I'm only going around the corner", I'd rather be thrown out of a car than be stuck in a seatbelt," and my favorite, "I'm a good driver I don't need to wear one." Well you may be a good driver but there are situations beyond your control such as bad weather, road conditions and not to mention other drivers that can affect your safety. Seat belts can mean the difference between life and death in an auto accident. Wearing a seat belt every time you enter a vehicle is not only the smart thing to do it is the right thing because it saves lives, it's the law and it will save you money.
... which fits into the discussion is the law of wearing a seatbelt. Not wearing a seatbelt while in a car is a good way of possibly causing harm to yourself. And according to the Harm Principle this should be allowed because you, as the person in the car, are deciding if you are going to put on your seatbelt. If the car were to crash it would have been your decision to not wear the seatbelt, so how can this be a government law? Putting or not putting on a seatbelt should be your decision because technically you are not causing harm to others, just possibly to yourself. If putting on a seatbelt is a law, why is a law against suicide not established, is it not basically the same theory. Allowing people to cause harm to themselves even if allowed by the Harm Principle does not only hurt the person doing the harm but also others around him, even if it is unintentionally.
Seatbelt is a very important component when we all drive a car or other vehicle. The main purpose of seat belts is to provide greater safety to the driver when driving car but at the moment, people do not care about the importance of wearing seatbelt.
We have all heard the excuses before, “do I have to wear it? It isn’t like it’s going to protect me,” “it’s uncomfortable, I’m only going around the corner,” or “I’d rather be thrown out of the vehicle than to be stuck in a seat belt.” No matter how good of a driver you are, or you think you might be, there are always situations that are beyond your control. Such as, bad weather, drunk drivers, and road conditions. Sometimes, seat belts can be a life or death in an automobile accident. Not only is wearing your seat belt every time you get in a vehicle, but it is required by law in 49 states, with the exception of New Hampshire. Although seat belts are known to lock up and wrinkle your clothes, I believe that wearing your seat belt is beneficial because every fourteen seconds someone is injured in a traffic crash. Seat belts are not only known for holding you in place during a collision, but more importantly the are known to save the lives of the occupants in the vehicle.