"Primary" Seat Belt Law Wrong for Missouri

 "Consider Liberty" by Mike Bozarth

Courtesy of the "Saint Joseph Telegraph"

February 12, 2009

There is another push in the legislature to pass a primary seat belt law. 

 

Unfortunately, the central issue at hand tends to get sidelined in the debate.  That issue is personal freedom.

 

Whenever we make something a crime when there is no victim, we are giving up important freedoms that the Constitution and Bill of Rights tried to guarantee against.

 

In 17 years of writing this column I rarely have criticized other local media.  But the editorial in the Feb. 8th issue of "The St. Joseph News Press" needs answered. 

 

They attempt to make a case of why not wearing a seat belt is not a victimless crime.  They used four examples, none of which would apply to me. 

 

1) "Any unrestrained person inside a vehicle is a lethal moving object, capable of inflicting injury on others during a crash."  I live alone.  I normally drive alone. 

2)  "An unrestrained driver will have less control of the vehicle following a crash, increasing the potential harm to other persons both in and outside the vehicle."  As I said earlier, I normally drive alone.  However, the last accident I had was about 10 years ago when I hit the third of three deer that ran across the highway in front of me.  I maintained control with my left hand while my right arm flew across my passenger's chest as the deer crashed into the windshield.  They likely would have hit the dash or windshield. 

3) " Failure to wear a seat belt by someone who is pregnant is especially dangerous."  Not likely in my case. 

 

The fourth reason the daily paper gives is especially weak.  "When the driver is not wearing a seat belt, half the time children in the vehicle are also unrestrained."  Child restraints are a completely separate issue, because children are not of age to make those choices for themselves.

 

While in Jefferson City last week I was visiting with a MO-DOT official and a local State Representative when the primary seat belt law came up.  Both support the primary law on the issue of safety.

 

But I don't challenge the fact that we are safer when we wear our seat belt than when we do not.  I concede that, and of late, have made an effort to comply.

 

For several years there has been a strong effort to repeal Missouri's mandatory helmet law.  Kansas doesn't have one.  What's at stake?

 

I have owned a motorcycle most of the time since I was 16.  I have always worn my helmet, even when on the back country roads with no traffic.  Why?  Because I agree that we are safer when wearing one.  But I do not support our mandatory helmet law--except for children.  I think adults should be allowed to make those decisions for themselves.

 

It's the same thing for seat belts.  In most instances, the only person you will harm by not wearing your seat belt is yourself.  You should be allowed to make those decisions for yourself.

 

Another local State Representative, whom I respect, favors seat belt laws because of economics, and potential cost to society.  When someone is hurt in an accident, it often costs others because of emergency services, medical care and higher insurance premiums.

 

My answer for that would be what insurance companies have already done to smokers.  Charge more, or make exclusions for people who do not wear their seat belt or their motorcycle helmet.  We already have mandatory insurance laws on all vehicles.

 

There is already a mandatory seat belt law on the books for Missouri.  I disagree with the idea of trading freedom off for perhaps a little more security.  Let's not make this worse by enacting a primary seat belt law.  It should not be an offense to get pulled over for.

 

Publisher’s Note: Mike Bozarth is the Editor and Publisher of the St. Joseph Telegraph and is also a member of the St. Joseph City Council. Lear more about him and the St. Joseph Telegraph at www.stjtelegraph.com.