Epiphany on I-95
Driving back into the oxymoronic "Free State" of Maryland recently, I was struck with the first sign of altruistic tyranny. It had been there for years. Indeed, I had commented on it frequently – ridiculed it, actually – just not in this new-found context.
The unholy marriage of Altruism to Tyranny would produce a union not unlike the late Samuel Francis' idea of Anarcho-Tyranny – only nicer. It comes in the exchange of the State telling you in velvet-lined words to sacrifice your rights, freedom, individuality – or else. Here is an example:
Welcome to Maryland, the Free State Please buckle your seat belt We care about you And it's our law
The translation is Altruistic Tyranny:
We are soooo concerned about you, do as we say or we'll slap you with a huge fine and expensive points to your license.
"Seat belts save lives" is not a slogan to trifle with. Those annoying statistics pretty much conclude lives are indeed saved and injuries reduced when seat belts are fastened in a conscientiously applied program of careful driving and regular use. There is, though, one niggling number in those records that's bothersome. When the propaganda touts "In 72% of all fatal accidents, the deceased were not wearing seat belts," that strongly suggests the remaining 28% who died were buckled up at the time – in accordance with State law.
This raises a pertinent question: Would those so dearly departed be with us today if they had civilly disobeyed the state's Altruistic Tyranny law and just sustained, say, "serious injury"? Unfortunately, we will never know. We certainly can't expect any reputable agency to offer even verifiable conjecture that might significantly contradict the empirical wisdom of the State, now could we? Let's take a peek.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) report on highway fatalities and seat belt use for 2002 showed "48,250 people died in traffic accidents. Of that number, 19,103 were not wearing seat belts." Now imagine the effect of this PSA (Public Service Announcement) played on the radio:
"According to the NHTSA's most recent statistics, 60% of highway fatalities were people wearing their seat belts!
So buckle up, everybody! Even though seat belts might not save your life, we still care about you – and we'll ticket you anyway if you don't obey."
The NHTSA doesn't offer any figures citing how many of the 29,147 dead seat belt wearers might be tooling around today had they not been forced under penalty of law to buckle up – nor are there figures showing how many of the 19,103 equally dead non-seat belt wearers may have survived had they been wearing their seat belt, voluntarily or not. NHTSA also doesn't number the number of people who are very alive today specifically because they left their seat belt in the Off and Unbuckled position.
But the central issue is not whether "seat belts save lives." Available statistics seem to indicate wearing one tends to increase your chances for survival and, maybe, prevent sustaining a serious injury. "Seat belts may save lives" is much more accurate but a lot less motivating (or reassuring) than the current slogan. And it doesn't play well into the Nanny State regulatory mind-set of the imperial government.
The same NHTSA report reveals the State's condescension and parental position:
Convincing the American public to wear seat belts is a top priority for former emergency room physician, Jeffrey Runge. Dr. Runge is now the Administrator for the NHTSA. He is pushing for Congress to give states incentives to pass bills that would make not wearing a seat belt a primary offense. This means that a driver or passenger can be ticketed for not wearing a seat belt. The ticket would not have to accompany another violation, such as a speeding ticket.”
In an accompanying study by The Reliability Center, Inc, a Virginia based consulting and training outfit, V.P. Robert Latino, Sr. fleshes out the elitist perspective:
Wearing a seat belt these days is commonplace. Most of us feel awkward when we do not wear seat belts today. However, there is apparently still 25% of the driving population that feel they do not need to wear safety belts and their conscious decision is costing the rest of us billions of dollars per year. It would also appear that we feel we as a country, need to further regulate in order to enforce compliance to this common sense requirement. (Emphasis mine.)
Damn those 25%!
Personally, I don't "feel" anything about seat belts or "as a country." I think as an individual and, as such, retain an inalienable freedom to choose with the understanding and acceptance of the consequences – good or bad – which will result from my decisions.
You may have surmised correctly I eschew seat belt use.
(I won't bore you with the gory details of being forced into a highway barrier at 70+mph by a weaving 18-wheeler. Suffice to say, my car split in half, did a 360, tossing your humble writer across the highway into a ditch, landing with a neck broken in three places and few other lacerations and contusions. Had I been wearing a seat belt, this article wouldn't be nearly as entertaining since my half of the car stopped quite suddenly, thanks to a conveniently located concrete wall. The impact relocated the driver's seat to the trunk. Had I been buckled in, I would have been a bright red stain on that wall and you would be reading someone else's work in this space. Oh – the offending truck driver didn't bother stopping. That's OK though – I didn't regain consciousness for 6 weeks to express my undying gratitude.)
Maryland is among a growing number of states that now make failure to don your seat belt a "primary offense," meaning cops can pull you over and ticket you just for the heinous crime of driving around unbuckled. Luckily, most of our Boys in Blue have better things to do but when did "selective enforcement" become comforting?
In Feeling Your Pain, James Bovard reveals we can thank our empathetic President, Bill Clinton who pumped adrenalin – and our tax dollars – into willing bodies of police departments to make sure you and our wee ones would come to no harm – or else!
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) under Clinton awarded tens of millions of dollars annually to local and state police departments and highway patrols to set up roadblocks and fine all violators of mandatory seatbelt laws. DOT' s website warned that the feds have "zero tolerance for unbuckled children." DOT gave bonus awards to local and state agencies that inflict the most tickets on citizens. The agency also suggested offering free hats, T-shirts, and coffee mugs to “enthusiastic officers who are personally committed to increasing seat belt and child safety seat use” – i.e., who write the most tickets…
Naturally, the children were the pretext for this expansion of government power. A press release from the 1998 crackdown on seatbelt violators proclaimed that the campaign “represents the largest coordinated effort by law enforcement to protect children in America’s history.” Apparently, nothing government has done in the last two centuries is as benevolent as making parents pay $50 for unbuckled kids. Yet, while children are ritually invoked, the vast majority of tickets are written to nail adults not wearing seatbelts….
A 1998 DOT report to Congress proclaimed that “highly visible enforcement . . . is more effective because the perceived risk of receiving a seat belt citation is increased, even if the actual risk is only slightly higher.” Thus, the federally funded roadblock campaign is an exercise in mass deceit. The feds presume that people are fools who must be continually frightened by government agents or else they will all go plunging over a cliff to their death.
Recently, the Maryland legislature made it legal again for motorcyclists to zip about, unfettered by a coif-destroying helmet. When it comes to the possibility of sustaining serious bodily injury, where would you rather be: wrapped inside any make of auto or straddling a 500 cc engine protected only by Wranglers and a "If You Can Read This, My Wife Fell Off"" t-shirt? One is left to conclude that Maryland only "cares" about people already safely tucked inside a car than those enjoying the occasional bumble bee in the teeth. Motorcycle riders are free to make their own decisions about personal safety despite their bodacious exposure. Hmmmm…maybe the repeal of the helmet law was really retribution for all those years of noisy biker rallies during legislative sessions demanding an unencumbered cranium.
Parents can also be on the receiving end of tickets, fines, even serious pokey time for not cinching their under-age tax deduction in a (state approved) industrial strength car seat which must then be properly strapped (according to state instructions) in the properly bolted (according to state specifications) back seat. This location is only appropriate since so many children started life back there anyway. The state supersedes parental responsibility without assuming any of the burden should the little tyke make a premature exit from this life as the result of severe Following Too Close and Mom's ewe-like obedience to the intrusive law. Curiously, States so concerned about a kid's scraped knee or more serious injury also maintain abortion is legal and a matter of choice. Seat belts…helmets…car seats…abortion – apparently not all choices are created equal or left to individual purview.
When this subject rears its ugly head on the air, it invariably elicits comments like: "The insurance claims you make for the injuries you get from not wearing your seat belt make my premiums go up – so it's just fine, fine, fine with me that cops can give idiots like you a ticket for being so stupid." Just as invariably, I tend to reply: Some insurance companies are refusing injury claims if the injured was not wearing a seatbelt at the time said injuries were sustained. Since an insurance policy is merely a contractual agreement to terms and limits between the insurer and the insured, a company could make benefits payable (or not) on any basis upon which both parties agrees. Don't like the terms? Take your business to an insurance company that recognizes your freedom to choose – as well as your right to be stupid. Higher premiums, you say? Well that's the price you pay for this corner of the free market. Now all you have to do is convince your state representatives to change the law to get the cops off your back.
On that note, maybe some gutsy, clear-thinking legislator will take a cue from this aspect of the Nanny State, demand repeal of the Anarcho-Tyranny law and introduce the Legislator's Responsibility Act. It would work like this: since Congress and states are so quick to pass these in loco parentis type laws, supposedly protecting us from our terribly irresponsible selves, politicians who vote "Aye" will be held personally and financially responsible for the "unintended consequences" of any over-reaching statute. When anyone is killed because, say, state-required seat belt use prevented them from possibly being thrown free from their vehicle before it slammed into a wall, possibly saving their life, all lawmakers who voted in favor of the law would be held personally liable for significant financial damages awarded to the survivors. Large minimums would be established. No longer holding office would not absolve a former legislator from his voting record. Similarly, governors and former governors would be held responsible for signing the stupid bill into law in the first place. Overridden vetoes would exonerate them – and automatically double the fine of the representatives who voted accordingly.
I won't be holding my breath, having already suggested this brilliant idea to those (allegedly) representing me here in the "Free State." None of these highly skilled elected officials has any intention of introducing my proposed legislation. However, they did seem to like the part about my car slamming into the wall.
March 10, 2005
