There should not be a mandatory seatbelt law

==== 1 - My opponent has misunderstood my point here. I am not saying that we should all be able to do whatever we want, unless it infringes on someone else's freedom. We should be, and are, however, able to do whatever we want that people with power do not want to stop us from doing. If those we have put into power decide that certain drugs, for instance, are harmful to society if people take them, then those in power - who are charged with protecting society at large - are justified in doing what they can to stop people from doing these drugs. This situation is the same for seatbelts: people not wearing seatbelts harms society at large, by causing, on average, twice as many deaths as wearing seatbelts (See point 4). Since legislative bodies are charged with making laws to ensure the prosperity and welfare of our society, they are quite justified in supporting mandatory seatbelt laws, since these laws increase the number of seatbelt-wearers and therefore reduce the number of unnecessary deaths. My opponent says that he is in favor of mandatory car inspections, [requiring that the brakes are in good working condition, etc], since these laws protect the safety of others. First, note that lawmakers are supposed to protect all citizens, not just 'others.' Second, note that there are always 'victims' when someone dies. If I die in a car crash because I wasn't wearing a seatbelt, I'm not the only person affected by that. It sends a ripple throughtout the chunk of society I inhabit - my friends and family are left mourning, my employer is shorthanded, etc. If my opponent needs for there to be a 'victim' other than oneself to accept seatbelt laws, he can simply consider the multitude of people besides himself who would be negatively affected by his needless death. === 2 - My opponent continues to argue that seatbelt laws are simply in place as an additional source of revenue. This is nonsense - I have and will continue to show in other points that there are other reasons. Additional revenue is but one of the many reasons the government has for supporting such laws. Perhaps I was mistaken in saying that raising taxes would be so easy, and I'm fine with accepting error on that point. Next, my opponent brings up that some places like Maryland overdo it - wasting their money on night vision goggles and their time on ticketing '44 drivers' for driving unbuckled at night. First, the waste of money seems to go against my opponent's point here, that the government is simply using this as a way to get more money. Second, enforcing a law that is beneficial to society is not something that should only be done during the day. And lastly, my opponent fails to mention the timeframe during which 44 drivers were given tickets for driving with no seatbelt. But it doesn't matter; if Maryland was overzealous, that is a problem with Maryland's zealotry, NOT a problem with mandatory seat belt laws. Mandatory seat belt laws can be enforced too little or too often, as it is with every crime. Mandatory seatbelt laws should continue to exist, and if they are enforced in certain places too often or too little, then the level of enforcement should be raised or lowered accordingly. My opponent also brings up police quotas. These sometimes may cause tickets that really weren't worth given out, no matter what the laws are in question. Seat belt laws don't cause police quotas - police uotas are a problem that exists separately from seatbelt laws. If police quotas really are bad, as my opponent suggests, then they should be abandoned. My opponent quotes John Locke as saying that a government cannot be successful without the consent of the people. It has just that - and in cases where it doesn't seat belt laws are not the issue. The overwhelming majority of people are fine with seatbelt laws - this is why you've probably never seen a protest against them. My opponent also brings up the 'insidious' example of highway funding. The federal government, in wanting to protect its citizens, decides that states will only get federal highway funding if certain safety regulations are followed - one of these regulations is the mandatory seat belt law. The fact that such seatbelt laws are necessary for our states to get highway funding stands out as yet another reason why each state SHOULD have mandatory seatbelt laws. === 3. My opponent suggests that the states that have seatbelt laws but no helmet laws do not really want either law, they have simply been coerced into the seatbelt law by federal funding. This is simply not true - motorcycle helmet laws are one of many safety regulations that must be followed to obtain federal funding. "In 1967, the federal government began requiring states to enact motorcycle helmet laws in order to be eligible for certain federal safety programs and highway construction funds." Among these states are Idaho and Arizona, according to my opponent. http://itd.idaho.gov... That is an Idaho government page, the authority on Idaho's position about these laws. There are some interesting facts there - here is one of them: "In 2007, the 22% of Idahoans that did not buckle up accounted for 65% of the people killed in traffic crashes. (ITD 2007 Crash Report and 2007 Observational Seat Belt Survey)" Further, let's look a little further down the page: "Idaho is ineligible for federal seat belt grant funds..." Looks like funding ISN'T their reason for seat belt laws after all! And here's some more interesting information on the page: In 2007, the economic impact to Idahoans for motorists killed or injured due to lack of seat belt use was $861 million. (ITD 2007 Crash Report) I can assure you, the ones who paid that $861 million were not the victims of the accidents - they were those left behind - those affected by the recklessness of these drivers. And from Arizona's government website http://www.azdps.gov...: "Every hour someone dies in America simply because they didn't buckle up. Failure to buckle up contributes to more fatalities than any other single traffic safety-related behavior. Despite terrible traffic problems such as aggressive driving, increasing seat belt use is still the single most effective thing we can do to save lives and reduce injuries on America's roadways." Note, too, that this might be why seat belt laws exist there but helmet laws do not. Relatively few people ride motorcycles, and helmets don't save lives as effectively as seatbelts. In fact, according to some studies they don't have a statistically significant effect at all [1]. By this logic, it is obvious why seat belt laws would exist in all states, where motorcycle helmet laws do not exist everywhere. === 4 - My opponent once again states that sometimes, seatbelts can actually be harmful. This is true, but much more often, seatbelts are good. It is impossible to know whether you will get in an accident where a seatbelt will help you, do nothing, or harm you. People do not 'plan' on getting in certain types of accidents. To be better prepared for the majority of accidents, people should wear seatblets. The proof is in the pudding - seatbelt-wearers are, on average, half as likely to die in an accident. Getting more people to wear seatbelts therefore saves lives, and reduces the negative economic and social impact of car crashes. My opponent points out a study where seatbelts were found to lead to slightly (2-3%) higher likelihood of certain types of injury. When we compare the measly 3% increase in likelihood of certain types of injury with the 50% reduction in likelihood of death, we find that seatbelts are still worth it overall. And now, to the much anticipated final round. [1]http://www.bikersrights.com...