Some lawmakers have argued that this proposal is about government intruding on individual rights and limiting choice, but at the same time the Transportation Committee is also looking at a bill that would prohibit people from texting while driving or speaking on a cell phone. How could such a bill past muster when we cannot enforce a seat belt law?
The most important argument for tough enforcement on seat belt use, though, is safety.
According to the Maine Bureau of Highway Safety, 37 percent of occupants in car crashes who were not wearing seat belts were injured in a study of crashes in 1996.
Of those who reported not wearing seat belts, 296 were hospitalized, and 62 people died. Those unbelted people represented less than one in 10 of all occupants in the studied crashes, but they accounted for more than half of the people who had to be hospitalized or died due to head injury.
In addition to the loss of life and extensive injury, the study showed the financial cost of car accidents.
For those hospitalized, the average charge for those who did not wear seat belts was $15,076, compared to $11,950 for those who wore seat belts. These costs drive up not only an individual’s insurance, but the premiums that others pay.
Another money issue is the $1.1 million in lost revenues this bill would create. It’s estimated that over two years, the state would lose that amount in fines for non-compliance with Maine’s seat belt law.
It has also been shown that primary enforcement laws increase the rate of seat belt use. Primary enforcement means a citation can be written whenever a law enforcement officer observes an unbelted driver or passenger, while secondary enforcement requires an officer to stop a violator for another infraction before issuing a ticket.
According to the same Bureau of Highway Safety study, eight of the nine states with the highest seat belt use rates have primary enforcement laws.
Allowing police to stop a car because a driver does not appear to be wearing a seat belt helps ensure that drivers and passengers wear seat belts. If people are not worried about being stopped and fined for the offense, they are less likely to abide by the rule.
Driving without a seat belt not only puts the driver at risk, but also increases the likelihood that their passengers or children will not buckle up. Children also learn by example, and would be less likely to use a seat belt when they become drivers themselves.
We believe it is important for everyone to wear seat belts, and it is just as important to let drivers know that the law is taken seriously, and anyone who does not abide by it will be held accountable.
All around, this proposal to reduce seat belt use to a secondary offense seems like a bad idea. It will cost the state much-needed revenues ”“ that are not raised by taxation ”“ and more importantly, it will cost lives.
The legislature should focus on finding ways to increase revenues, create efficiencies and make Maine a safe place for everyone.
Ӣ Ӣ Ӣ
Questions? Comments? Contact Managing Editor Kristen Schulze Muszynski by calling 282-1535, Ext. 322, or via e-mail at kristenm@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
