Wednesday Woes

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-04-2003
Wednesday Woes
51
Wed, 04-07-2004 - 11:01pm

Hey Ladies!

 
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Fri, 04-09-2004 - 1:57am
Hi. I haven't seen you on this board before, so before I say anything that may offend you let me preface this by saying I have nothing against you, but I do have a problem with this law.

Let me explain- for example, I would not tolerate a law that required a person to wear a condom- a safety device and prophylactic that can prevent death and tragedy. Why? Because the government has no business in my bedroom or anyone else's. You say you don't want to pay for one who's been ejected from their car with your taxes- your taxes are paying for people with AIDS and STD's, people who die or suffer from complications due to unplanned pregnancies, as well as the children born of unplanned pregnancies, etc. that COULD have been prevented by a law requiring condoms, but such a law would violate people's right to govern themselves.

I see this is as NO different than an adult choosing not to wear a seat belt when driving.

Personally, I do wear my seat belt, as does my husband. I require anyone under the age of 18 to wear one in my car. But once a person is old enough to vote I really think the government has no business requiring them to take such a measure. Everyone who is of age in my car who chooses NOT to wear a seatbelt does so with the knowledge that they will be paying the ticket if one is issued becuase of their NOT wearing a seatbelt.

I do respect your opinion, and your right to have it. I understand feeling strongly about an issue, as I feel passionately about many myself.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Fri, 04-09-2004 - 2:02am
Darling- you can find research to support any opinion. And while I believe you can think what you want, you have no right to act as though you're infallible. Last I knew Jesus hadn't come back yet.

BTW- this is part of something I used to get out of a seatbelt ticket a MICHIGAN COP gave me, even though I WAS wearing a shoulder restraint. I had chosen NOT to wear my lap belt because I'd been attacked by a dog days before and it laid across the open wounds and hurt like hell. The judge felt it was sufficient and didn't fine me.

For YOUR edification and enlightenment:


"FACTS ABOUT STATE MANDATORY SEAT BELT HARNESS LAWS

1. While the use of a seat belt has saved some people in certain kinds of traffic accidents, there is ample proof that in other kinds, some people have been more seriously injured and even killed only because of seat belt use. In the latter case, such injuries and deaths are not given the same degree of publicity, if any, as given when people are supposedly saved by seat belt use. Such bias in compiling traffic accident data exaggerates the so-called benefit of seat belt laws which misleads the public into thinking that seat belt use automatically means safety; non-use automatically means death in all kinds of accidents, which is false.

2. In spite of the fact the government is forcing the use of a device that can be injurious and even lethal in certain situations, the government refuses to be held financially responsible for such injuries or deaths. Instead, the government expects the injured or survivors of those killed to obtain financial satisfaction from their own savings, or insurance, or by suing the auto makers.

3. There is ample proof that some people in certain kinds of traffic accidents have survived only because a seat belt was not used – injured, perhaps, but not dead. Such persons, by law, are subject to a citation and a fine for not dying in the accident using a so-called safety device arbitrarily chosen by politicians. Data on such traffic accidents only reflect one more injury without using a seat belt, which exaggerates the so-called benefit of such laws.

3. If a person is killed while using a seat belt, law supporters claim the accident was so severe, not even a seat belt could have saved the person. Actually, that might be true in some cases, but the severity of an accident is never a factor in compiling a list of persons killed while not using a seat belt, which, again, adds to the bias in traffic accident data in support of seat belt laws.

4. Evidence of seat belt use increasing injuries or causing a person’s death in certain kinds of traffic accidents is well documented in the hundreds of successful lawsuits filed against the auto makers since the advent of seat belt laws in 1985. Court ordered settlements and punitive damage awards forced the auto makers to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to the injured or survivors of those killed as a result of the failure of the seat belt to save as promised. Some lawsuits were settled out of court which sealed the evidence of seat belt design defects from the public, including other lawyers with similar cases.

5. Hundreds of thousands of autos, vans and light trucks have been recalled as a result of discovering defects in certain seat belt designs after the fact, which means the motoring public has been forced by law to become unwilling guinea pigs, unlike how all other products in the marketplace are treated. In a letter published in the September/October 1990 edition of AAA World, a publication of the Chicago Motor Club, Jerry Curry, NHTSA Administrator, said: We opened 213 new defect investigations in 1989, the highest one-year figure in the agency’s history. A total of 6.8 million vehicles were recalled that year, a million more than the national average. While Mr. Curry did not say how many such recalls involved seat belt defects, such recalls, again, reflect how the public is being used as guinea pigs for automotive products.

5. There is a body of law that states a person has the right to refuse any personal health care device, drug, treatment, or surgery, even if such refusal might result in an earlier death or an increase in medical expenses. All seat belt laws, therefore, violate a person’s right to freely choose to use or not to use a "health care" seat belt harness. Any medical professional attempting to do the same would be prosecuted, yet politicians claim they can ignore the law while demanding strict compliance from the private sector.

6. In 1991 the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed the right to determine one’s personal health care standard in the Johnson Controls case. Also, a federal appeals court upheld a $100,000 award in 1993 to a 320 pound woman who sued the state of Rhode Island for refusing to hire her back to work unless she lost weight. The federal Equal Opportunity Commission had earlier ruled obesity a protected right under the Act, and the court agreed even though obesity is a self-inflicted health hazard and causes more premature deaths each year than highway fatalities.

7. While there is extensive publicity always given those who support seat belt laws, research published by independent professionals, that is, those not on the federal payroll, which challenges the so-called benefit of seat belt laws, is never printed in the national news media, thus the public is denied the right to know there is a legitimate contrary side to the seat belt law controversy.

8. At one time, it was the same with air bags until one investigative reporter decided to start printing the truth about air bag dangers in certain kinds of traffic accidents. The bureaucrats in the U.S. Dept. of Transportation were so adamant against telling the public about such dangers, which the public had a right to know, the reporter had to use the Freedom of Information Act to force the government to release its own documented records of air bag injuries and deaths."




iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Fri, 04-09-2004 - 2:04am
And some more light reading for you:

PRIMARY ENFORCEMENT STATES

The insidious nature of seat belt laws is shown even further in states with primary enforcement of the law. The following is what can happen in states with primary enforcement:

1. Your vehicle can be stopped anytime, day or night, by the police merely under suspicion a seat belt is not being used. And even if mistaken, once the vehicle is stopped the officer can begin routine interrogation and testing – force occupants to exit – visually check out the contents of the inside of the vehicle looking for any kind of a violation of the law, all without the right of legal counsel; all under the pretense of not using a seat belt.

2. Primary enforcement encourages an increase in random roadblocks. In a 1994 statewide campaign, North Carolina conducted 2,038 roadblocks in two weeks under the pretext of checking for seat belt use. In spite of further use of random roadblocks that year, which the governor boasted increased seat belt use to 80%, total highway facilities actually increased in the state for 1994 over the record of each of the preceding 3 years.

3. If not using a seat belt, you could be stopped for a minor traffic violation that otherwise would be ignored if using a seat belt. You may also be targeted because of a bumper sticker, your license plate, your age, race, or gender. Primary enforcement opens the door for police harassment, intimidation and profiling. Young people, women, and minorities are vulnerable, especially when traveling alone and at night, or in certain neighborhoods.

4. You are subject to an officer’s misinterpretation of your answers, your attitude, or what the officer sees in your vehicle. You could become the victim of a corrupt act, such as the planting of drugs in your vehicle by an officer. You could be accused of using drugs because the cash in your possession has the odor of drugs. Officers can confiscate your cash and your vehicle if there is some drug residue without proving you know about or caused the residue to be there. Courts have recognized that most currency in circulation has some discernible drug residue. It is reported that 80% of the assets confiscated by law enforcement do not lead to a criminal charge, but only a small percent is ever returned, which further violates the Bill of Rights. Confiscation of assets has become a very lucrative business for some police agencies and offers big incentives to increase roadblocks and speed traps.

5. Some states issue a seat belt violation fine against the driver even if the driver is using a seat belt but a passenger is not, and even if the driver did not know about it. Drivers, therefore, could easily become distracted while driving by a constant watch of passengers, both adults and children in the rear seat.

6. Primary enforcement is an easy way to enhance state revenue through fines. Also, additional income comes from the federal government in the form of grants to pay the police to enforce the seat belt law. Such grants are used by the police as overtime pay while enforcing the seat belt law, which is why the police support primary enforcement laws. Also, such lucrative overtime pay helps relieve pressure for a police salary increase. And in some areas where job performance standards include a citation quota, seat belt violations offers easy compliance.

7 Some insurance companies target seat belt violations as an excuse to increase rates even for drivers without an accident record, yet there is no proven correlation between non-seat belt use causing accidents. In fact, even if you habitually use a seat belt but forget just once, that might be the time an officer stops your vehicle, thus your driving record is unjustly marred.

8. Some states level points against a driver’s license for not using a seat belt in addition to a fine, which means a person is being punished twice for the same offense, another violation of the Constitution. Also, it means a driver’s license could eventually be suspended for repeated offenses even if the driver has been a careful driver for years with no accident or traffic violation.

9. If you are medically exempted from seat belt use, your vehicle could still be stopped since an officer cannot know until you are stopped. This applies to drivers who are using a seat belt but a passenger not using one because of an exemption. Even with a medical exemption, once the vehicle is stopped, the officer can still begin a routine interrogation, testing and visually looking for any kind of a violation of the law. Persons with medical exemptions are also subject to being stopped repeatedly during any travel route by other police along the way. Also, providing an officer with your confidential medical records and exemption is a violation of your right of privacy.

10. It should be noted, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a federal agency, in a 1995 study: Safety Belt Use Law – An Evaluation of Primary Enforcement and Other Provisions, stated "The analysis suggests that belt use among fatally injured occupants was at least 15 percent higher in states with primary enforcement laws."

11. Primary enforcement is promoted as saving lives, however, stopping vehicles for non-seat belt use is only an excuse to arbitrarily and capriciously accuse people of traffic violations of one kind or another, thus issuing citations as a means of easily increasing revenue, as well as providing easy lucrative overtime income for the police. Primary enforcement has nothing to do with saving lives; has all to do with revenue enhancement at the expense of fleecing the motoring public.

CONCLUSION

Politicians have no authority to willingly and knowingly force some people to maim and kill themselves in certain kinds of traffic accidents using a so-called safety device, a seat belt harness, just because they hope others will be saved in other kinds of accidents merely by chance. The Constitution forbids the government from taking chances with a person’s body, the ultimate private property, unless due process is first initiated. The government has no right to play Russian roulette with a person’s life.

There certainly is nothing wrong with voluntary seat belt use, as it is with all other kinds of individual personal health care recommendations in life; however, there is a great deal wrong with all state mandatory seat belt harness laws.

In a free society, if a person is injured or killed in a traffic accident because he/she freely chooses to use or not to use a seat belt, that is a personal tragedy, as it is with all other kinds of freely chosen risks in life. That is freedom working. However, if a person is injured or killed in a traffic accident because the government forced that person to use a certain device against his/her will, that is tyranny working, and reflects injury and death by government. All state mandatory seat belt harness laws, therefore, must be repealed in order to restore true freedom and constitutional law in the U.S.

The insidious nature of seat belt laws is further shown in the April 2001 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court which foolishly ruled that it is legal for a police officer to arrest, handcuff and jail a person for not using a seat belt in the Atwater/Lago Vista case. As a result, we no longer can depend upon the court system to protect our rights under the Bill of Rights. With that ruling, the Supreme Court reversed protecting citizens from the government, to protecting the government from citizens, which brings us one step closer to totalitarianism.

The fact is, we would never tolerate a law that would give any doctor the power to send the police to our homes, unannounced, to check to see if we are following the doctor’s health care guidelines or orders, such as taking our medicine, eating a proper diet, or exercising daily, and if the officer found we were violating any of the doctor’s health care orders, by that law, the officer would issue a ticket. But that is exactly what has happens daily on our highways in tolerating seat belt laws, whereby the police, unannounced, stop our privately owned auto to see if we are using a health care seat belt harness, a device arbitrarily chosen by politicians, and if not, issue a ticket.

With the Supreme Court on the side of tyranny in supporting police harassment of motorists at will, in issuing tickets, arresting and jailing people for not using a seat belt, a victimless, state created crime, the only power left to restore true freedom in the U.S. is the ballot box. Voters must make it clear at every political rally, as well as by personally contacting politicians (often), that they will not support any candidate for office who does not openly oppose seat belt laws and work for repeal of such laws if elected.


FACT FINDERS

What follows is information on subjects related directly or indirectly to seat belt law opposition and are presented for educational purposes only. Also, opposition to seat belt laws does not include opposition to voluntary seat belt use; only mandatory use under threat of punishment by the brutal arm of law.

In quoting persons or paragraphs from certain publications, it should be noted that each such represents a quote and a situation within a certain time frame and as of today, such persons might have changed their opinion or conditions no longer exist.

The "Status Report" quoted in some articles refers to a publication of The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, (IIHS), an Arlington, Virginia, based organization supported by insurance companies.



FACT-FINDER # 1

Seat Belt Injuries, part I

The 11-21-92 Status Report relates some facts about the increase in serious injuries to legs and ankles to seat belt users in the U.S. and England. Researchers contended such is the price of using a seat belt in what would otherwise be, according to their judgement, an unsurvivable traffic accident.

Whether or not any accident would have been unsurvivable without seat belt use is conjecture based on the institute’s bias in favor of such laws, which automatically always assumes safety with seat belt use and death without in all kinds of accidents, which is not true for all traffic accidents.

Another important point, the research indicated most of the drivers injured "had been injured in offset frontal (side impact) crashes, where intrusion of the occupant compartment is likely."

Injury to drivers using a seat belt in side impacts is understandable since the driver is held in a fixed position while the impacting vehicle penetrates the side of the vehicle, thus transferring full impacting forces to the driver’s body held in a fixed position. Without a seat belt, the driver is pushed to one side out of the way from full impacting forces – injured, perhaps, but not crushed to death, as happens in some cases. Also, the driver might see the vehicle coming and swiftly move to the right side of the seat, or even on the floor away from the impacting forces. In a seat belt, such fast evasive action is next to impossible, unless one is even swifter in first unbuckling the belt.

In addition to severe injuries to seat belt users in side impact accidents, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Washington, D.C., in a April 1993 news release titled: "Neck Injuries in Car Accidents Are Still a Major Concern Even for Belted Occupants," stated:

Neck injury is one of the most frequent injuries resulting from motor vehicle accidents and also is a major component of total accident injury costs paid by insurance companies. Seat belt car-occupants tend to suffer a higher proportion of neck injuries than unbelted occupants because while seat belts tend to prevent more severe head injuries, the belts make acceleration/deceleration of car occupant heads worse because of the sudden change of vehicle velocity.

Also, The Insurance Research Council (IRC), Malvern, PA, released a report in 1993 that showed insurance claims costs for crash survivors with catastrophic injuries – those expected to cost $100,000 or more – rose 75 percent in just three years, from 1988 to 1991. Those same years were during the time over 31 states, representing the vast majority of the driving population of the U.S., had passed seat belt laws which resulted in a dramatic increase in forced seat belt use. While the IRC attributed the increase to claims costs to a number of reasons, it never included the passage of seat belt laws as any contributing factor, which, no doubt, was influenced by the fact IRC supports seat belt laws. However, one point that cannot be denied, the 73 percent increase happened during the ascendency of sat belt law passage and the dramatic increase in forced seat belt use.

There are other kinds of well documented facts that in certain kinds of traffic accidents some people have been more severely injured or killed only because of forced seat belt use, and some people have been saved from death only because a seat belt was not used.

The fact is, even safety engineers have known for decades that the use of a seat belt is no real guarantee of safety and in certain kinds of accidents its use can actually be lethal. While seat belt law supporters might claim more are saved then injured or killed, that rationale is not applied outside the automotive industry and, in fact, a seat belt is the only product in the marketplace that is allowed to maim and kill with government approval under the banner of supposedly saving others, whether they want to be saved or not. However, the government actually has no constitutional authority to willingly and knowingly force some people to maim and/or kill themselves through forced seat belt use just because the government hopes others will be saved in other kinds of accidents merely by chance.

The Bill of Rights forbids the government from taking chances with a person’s body, the ultimate private property, unless due process is first instituted. The government has no right to play Russian roulette with a person’s life. Only a police state claims the right to make individual personal life and death decisions for its citizens under threat of punishment for those who object. Those who support seat belt laws really believe in a police state society.

There certainly is nothing wrong with voluntary seat belt use, as it is with all other kinds of individual personal health care recommendations and suggestions in life; however, there is a great deal wrong with all state mandatory seat belt harness laws.

In a free society, It must be the fully informed judgement of each person whose life or death is involved, to freely decide to use or not to use a seat belt. Voters must make it clear that they will not support any candidate for office who does not agree.


FACT-FINDER # 2

Seat Belt Injuries, part II

Two professors at the University of Winnipeg, Canada, completed a three year study based on 2,715 drivers from 1982-88 who were injured and matched up with hospital records.

According to the study, seat belt use result in more injuries to specific parts of the body, namely: 2.9% more to spine; 2.8% more to chest and pelvis; and 2.3% more to the head. The conclusion is that seat belts are hazardous because the forces of a crash hit a person harder when you are pinned in one spot.

The Canadian study was not publicized in the national news media in the U.S., although one professor presented the study in January 1992 in Washington, .D.C., at the prestigious "Transportation and Research Board of the U.S., National Academy of Science.

No doubt, if such a study were positive in support of seat belt laws, its results would have received widespread national U.S. news media coverage. However, since the national news media in the U.S. supports seat belt laws, anything negative about such laws, even when well researched and documented, is censored from the public on the seat belt law controversy.

While the study, itself, was not covered in the U.S. press, comments in letters to the editor did get printed in The Patriot Ledger, Quency, MA. That resulted in a reply from the professors in the April 1, 1993 edition, a copy of which follows:

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Canadian seat belt research

Our seat belt research triggered comment in your letter column March 17. Ordinary readers may have been led to believe that on several occasions our courts (Canadian) have rejected the merits of our work.

The facts are otherwise.

In Canada, we are aware of only three attempts by others who have attempted Charter Rights (constitutional) challenges to seat belt legislation based in part on our work.

Canadian constitutional challenges typically are required to be charged, and must first demonstrate that compliance to legislation constitutes a threat to the security of their person. If successful at this stage, the challenge then shifts and it is the government’s burden to demonstrate that in a free and democratic society it is reasonable for the government to require compliance. It is at this stage that our supreme courts have required statistical proofs, and it is here that our work is significant. Unless challengers can situate our work within something like the above framework, the issue fails to be tested.

The first challenge was aborted by our government’s "staying" proceedings in May 1992. The government thus managed to avoid facing our 1990 published research in court by the expedient of refusing to further prosecute a then 18-month-old criminal action relating to a refusal to wear a seat belt.

In the only case where a challenger employed an attorney, our research was presented over a year ago. Succeeding"continuances" mean that this case is still before the court.

Where we have presented expert analysis for plaintiff in civil matters relating to driver injuries, although settlement has been to plaintiff satisfaction, it has been out of court and consequently has generated no trial record.

Simply put, our research shows that seat belt use rate in the general population to be below that found in serious injury and fatality cases in the statistically significant subsets analyzed. Our injury data is as reported to us by our Manitoba health Services Commission. Our fatality data is from our medical examiner hard copy files. As presently reviewed by us each file has been examined at least four times. The review team included four academics and a retired police sergeant.

We presently find that complete census over several years of the largest fatality subset (multi-vehicle), identifies 80 percent of belted victims. It also identifies the subset category showing a large and significant post-legislation fatality increases. When the subset excludes impaireds, the increase is proportionally much greater. We also find no trade-off benefit in other subsets.

Given the actual significant increased fatality risk in the dominant subset, we therefore conclude that compulsory seat belt legislation is unwarranted in a free and democratic society.

Prof. E.M. Levine, Dept. of Philosophy

Prof. Alexander Basilevsky, Dept. of Statistics

University of Winnipeg

Manitoba, Canada



FACT-FINDER # 5

Seat Belt Injuries, part III

Better Homes and Gardens, April 1991, had the following article:

Seat-belt thyroiditis. Your throat muscles ache, your thyroid gland is swollen, and your temperature is rising. These are all classic signs of the flue. The only problem is, you don’t have the flue. What’s up, Doc? Call it a side effect of riding safe. In 1988 Michael Bornemann, M.D., of Tripler Army Medical Center in Honolulu reported just such a case involving a 64-year-old man, who developed a pain in the left side of his neck while wearing his seat belt. The pain got worse over a two-month period; in the end, it was bad enough to wake the man up at night. In addition, he was running a low-grade fever with flu-like aches and pains and suffering from an inflamed thyroid gland (thyroiditis). Curiously, only the left side of the patient’s thyroid gland was enlarged; in true thyroiditis, both sides are likely to be inflamed and swollen. Another curiosity: the patient had no history of thyroid disease. Based on these factors, Dr. Bornemann followed a cautious course, gave the patient a mild pain reliever for the pain and suggested that he loosen the shoulder harness on his seat belt. Within a month, the pain was gone and so was the thyroid swelling.

While this case is rare, it might only be because of the lack of recognition and publicity. How many more such rare side effects exist from forced seat belt use cannot be determined until there are studies from independent professionals, that is, professionals not paid by the government to support the government’s political seat belt law agenda.

In the article, "Seat belt injury to the female breast," British Journal of Surgery, vol. 73, February, 1986, pp106-107, the conclusion reached on 6 cases is as follows"

Three of the women had carcinoma in a breast undoubtedly damaged by trauma. The simple conclusion that trauma caused the cancer is not substantiated by experimental evidence.

....

In conclusion, trauma from a seat belt can produce lesions which cannot be distinguished from malignant lesions by clinical examination or radiological imaging. Any lesion failing to resolve with time requires a histological diagnosis to minimize the risk of missing a carcinoma.

In another more recent study in the Medical Trial Technique Quarterly, summer 1995, pp 642-649, there is an article titled: "Trauma and Cancer Associated With Seat Belt and Shoulder Restraint in Motor Vehicle Accidents." The following are introductory comments"

Although it is not universally accepted that trauma can precipitate, aggravate or accelerate all cancers, it is quite uniformly agreed that trauma may have caused these effects on some cancers like breast cancer. The author presents two cases. In the one of these, there is unquestionably a link between the trauma and the actual breast cancer. In the second, the trauma has had an influence on the pathology of the breast, which is linked to cancer. The author presents these cases in an effort to stimulate recognition of this causal relationship between trauma by seat belt and breast cancer.

There is equal concern over pregnant woman and seat belt use, along with a variety of suggestions which way to fit the seat belt harness to do the least damage in a traffic accident.

While seat belt law supporters will argue without belt use in the cases cited there would have been more serious injuries and even death to the women, but that is their biased conclusion. The fact is, there is ample evidence that some people have been saved from more serious injuries and even death only because of not using a seat belt in certain traffic accident situations. Because of the many unknowns in a traffic accident, it is impossible to legislate a single safety standard for all kinds of shapes and sizes of people for all kinds of traffic accidents.

It is equally most interesting to note that the law today fully recognizes a woman’s right to determine the health care standards of the human life within her womb even to the point of endangering its very existence through an abortion; however, the law refuses to recognize that the same woman can determine the health care standards of her own body as soon as she steps inside a motor vehicle, that is, she is forced by law to use a seat belt harness supposedly to protect herself, whether she wants that protection or not. This is not to argue that abortion is or is not right; however, it does clearly show how hypocritical the law and politicians can be.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Fri, 04-09-2004 - 2:05am
And a little more.......


FACT-FINDER # 11

Crash Tests Research

The Status Report of 4-18-92 has the following comments about traffic accident research:

Then there’s the inherent limitation of all flat barrier crash tests. These tests were established in the 1960s and, almost since then, researchers have been debating their relevance to on-the-road crashes. Mercedes-Benz, for example, has been arguing that offset-barrier tests, in which only part of the front of the car contacts the barrier, more closely simulate the kinds of real frontal crashes that frequently produce deaths and serious injuries. Plus, Mercedes has demonstrated that cars that perform well in front-into-flat barrier tests, like the NCAP tests, don’t necessarily perform well in offset crash tests.

It should be noted, this criticism is challenging the credibility of crash tests as performed by researchers since the 1960s. Those are the same crash tests that seat belt law supporters have been using for years as examples of the life-saving benefits of seat belt use and the need for the passage of state mandatory seat belt harness laws in order to save lives.

Further, what is not mentioned, besides the now officially admitted inherent limitation of all flat-barrier crash tests since the 1960s, such crash tests always used the unrealistic speed of 35mph, or less, and, therefore, were phoney in simulating the more realistic life-threatening accidents that occur at much higher speeds.

Of course, by using a lower speed for crash tests, researchers were careful not to expose in the laboratory the more likely deaths at higher speeds even with seat belt use. Safety experts know there are "unsurvivable" traffic accidents in spite of seat belt use, and researchers did not want any statistics reflecting the number of deaths in such cases while using a seat belt. By using lower speeds in crash tests researchers were able to manufacture more favorable statistics of seat belt use in their highly controlled laboratory tests supposedly "saving" lives, which was give widespread publicity.

Actually, the questionable merit of crash tests were known by the federal government even prior to 1992. In the 9-16-86 edition of Auto Week magazine, there is the following article:

The federal government has a new dummy for use in crash testing cars. The anthropometric dummy, call the Hybrid III by GM, its principal developer, is designed to respond more like human occupants than the current device.

The inadequacies of the current test dummy are in part responsible for the traffic safety community’s inability to predict with any certainty the amount of protection provided car occupants by current restraint systems. And that inability, in turn, clouds the airbag/passive restraint debate.

The new dummy will be optional for the mandatory 30mph crash tests beginning with the 1987 model year. Use of the new dummy will be required for crash tests of 1992 models.

Since the dummy used prior to development of the Hybrid III was inadequate to predict with any certainty the amount of protection provided car occupants by current restraint systems (seat belts), all the statistics quoted by seat belt law supporters in defense of seat belt laws are, therefore, fully discredited. That means seat belt law supporters for years have been using carefully manipulated and even phony statistics in order to fool the public into believing there was a need for seat belt laws to reduce highway fatalities.

It should be noted, the new Hybrid III dummy crash tests were to be conducted at 30mph, which is an unrealistic speed to fully evaluate what really happens in real traffic accidents. No doubt, with such a lower speed, crash tests will show a greater number of lives "saved." This is more proof of the phony statistics being manufactured in support of seat belt laws at great expense to society using both taxes and private dollars.

Seat belt laws are a tremendous financial social burden, and in certain kinds of accidents, forced seat belt use can result in more serious injuries and deaths. Such laws, therefore, should be repealed in order to not only save dollars, but, equally important, to regain our constitutional right to freely choose to use or not use a seat belt, based on a fully informed judgement of the risk in both cases. There is nothing wrong with voluntary seat belt use; however, there is a great deal wrong with all state mandatory seat belt harness laws.



FACT-FINDER # 12

Side Impacts

In the 11-17-90 Status Report, it is stated that side impacts are the second leading cause of injury and death on the highways. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a federal agency, is quoted as claiming about 8,000 people are killed and 24,000 seriously injured in side impacts each year.

In another Status Report for 4-18-92 on page 5, there are two pictures of cars that were side impacted resulting in serious injury to occupants. The Caption beneath the pictures reads as follows:

Even in low-severity side impacts, serious occupant injuries may occur, especially to drivers on the struck side of the vehicle. The Plymouth (shown above) was struck on the side at a relatively low speed but the driver, who was using a lap-shoulder belt, suffered multiple rib fractures and other injuries. In severe side impacts, even worse injuries often occur. The passenger in the Chevrolet (shown above) was trapped in the car after this crash and subsequently was hospitalized for seven days with injuries. It’s because of the seriousness of injuries that occur in such crashes that NHTSA plans to add side impact tests to NCAP.

As more people are forced to use seat belts, such figures will probably increase. This is understandable since a seat belt holds a person in a fixed position as the on-coming vehicle penetrates the side door, thus seriously injuring or crushing the occupant to death. If a seat belt is not used, upon impact, the occupant is pushed to one side, injured, perhaps, but not crushed to death. Also, in some cases the occupant might see the on-coming vehicle and be able to throw him/herself to the side or the floor away from the crushing blow of the penetrating vehicle.

Side impacts also make it almost impossible for the occupant to open the impacted door after the crash even if not crushed to deaths or seriously injured. If fire or smoke results, this could be life-threatening before the release of the buckle and fast evacuation through another door or opening.

In another study (July 1996) by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, titled: Two-Vehicle Side Impact Crashes: the Relationship of Vehicles and Crash Characteristics to Injury, discussing seat belt use in side impact, page 14, is the following:

However, belts are less useful for occupants on the impacted side of the vehicle. Most serious injuries on the near side are due to contact with the adjacent side structure, which seat belt cannot prevent. Therefore, further steps must be taken to protect the head and chest of both near-and-far-side occupants from contact with intruding objects and the vehicle’s side structure.

There is federal consideration that auto makers reinforce auto doors to prevent or lessen impact pressures. However, such added weight will increase total auto weight which had to be previously reduced to achieve federal fuel economy standards. If mandated, such standards might have to change.

Side air bags have also been proposed, however, again, there are some trade-offs. The inflated side air bag, while cushioning the impacting vehicle somewhat, might also apply additional life-threatening pressures to body parts, especially if the person is being held in a fixed position in a seat belt.

The fact remains, no matter how the federal government attempts to fine-tune its so-called safety programs and regulations, they will all have inherent risks, which dictates that sent belt use must be a free choice, not mandated by government, after each person is fully informed of such risk.



FACT-FINDER # 14

Phony Research

In the past there has been numerous incidents of manipulation of highway accident statistics in favor of seat belt laws. Prof. John Adams, University College London, England, in his 1985 book "Risk and Freedom," discredited a great deal of such statistics being quoted at that time in support of the need for the passage of seat belt laws. Since the national news media refused to cover his book, the general public was not aware of his research to the contrary of seat belt law supporters.

Since then, other professionals have also exposed such phony statistics in support of seat belt laws. A good example is the research by Leon S. Robertson, Ph. D., Nanlee Research and Yale University, Branford, Connecticut, in his work titled: Highway Deaths: PR on the Effects of PR.

This research was discussed in the Status Report of 2-19-94 and reads in part as follows:

In June, 1988, the Dept. of Public Safety (DPS) in South Carolina launched a media campaign called ‘Highways or Dieways,’ in an attempt to reduce motor vehicle fatalities. Deaths per vehicle mile declined during the succeeding years and the DPS attributed all of the reduction to the campaign, gleaning some 64 awards in the process. This research indicates that the DPS took credit for a decline in fatalities that resulted from other factors. Fatality rates in South Carolina were actually higher during the campaign than would have been expected from the historic association of South Carolina’s rates with the national rate or those of other stares in the region. The campaign actually illustrates the principle that ad campaigns alone are often ineffective in changing public health.

It is reported South Carolina spent about $373,000 on the ads, including $257,000 in federal funds. That means over 68 percent came from federal taxes. The state also received $2.6 million in donated advertising time and other services.

Besides discrediting phoney statistics, this research is a good example of the high societal costs of seat belt laws. This is in contrast to the claim by seat belt law supporters that such laws are needed in order to save lives and money.

Also, the 64 awards were given to South Carolina for its effort to supposedly reduce highway fatalities, is another example how fast seat belt law supporters rally around any kind of statistics in favor of the law without questioning their validity or accuracy. However, any research that challenges the effectiveness of seat belt laws is met with close scrutiny, including a great deal of condemnation.

While this research exposed the phony statistics used in one state, the big question is, how many other states have also manipulated statistics in order to sing the praises of their seat belt law? Many other seat belt states have also spent millions of dollars on seat belt law public relations over the years. And further, for years the federal government has eagerly given millions of tax dollars in grants to states (bribes) to encourage seat belt law enforcement. This is all a waste of both federal and state taxes and adds to the high societal cost of seat belt laws.

This raises the question of what degree of intelligence is being used by our politicians in setting tax spending priorities? It also raises the question why we have seat belt laws in the first place? The fact is, both state and federal governments are foolishly spending millions of tax dollars artificially propping up and supporting a law the people never requested, never needed, and the vast majority of the people do not want even to this day!



FACT-FINDER # 16

Seat Belt Laws Are Sustained By Extortion And Blackmail

In 1991, there were about a dozen states that refused to pass a seat belt law and many more states did not pass a motorcycle helmet law. To "encourage" those states to pass such laws, members of Congress resorted to their usual method of extortion and blackmail to force states to do things that the citizens in those states did not want. That is, Congress in 1991 passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, in which had provisions in the Act threatening states that did not pass both a seat belt and helmet law by October 1, 1993 with the loss of control over a certain portion of federal highway funds.

With the passing of that deadline, newspaper columnists and editors, who were in lock step with the federal government’s so-called safety programs, bitterly castigated politicians in those states that had already passed a seat belt law but not a helmet law, or in states that refused to pass either law.

Certainly, "freedom of the press" in the Bill of Rights guarantees members of the press the right to vent their political opinions, but they seem somewhat confused about other people’s rights that are equally guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Our Founding Fathers passed the Bill of Rights not just to protect the press from government encroachment, but to also protect citizens from government encroachment of their individual personal rights.

Besides violating the Bill of Rights, seat belt and helmet laws also violate that body of law that states a person has the right to accept or refuse individual personal health care recommendations and suggestions, even if such refusal will result in an increase in medical expenses or an earlier death. The right to determine one’s own individual personal health care risks in life includes freedom to choose to use or not to use health care devices, such as a seat belt or a helmet.

It certainly is strange that members of the press are willing to surrender other people’s freedom in the name of federal so-called safety programs, however, if anyone threatens even just a little, "freedom of the press," they immediately attack with a vengeance. It seems members of the press act as if the Bill of Rights only protects their rights, while individual personal rights are open to negotiation; are subservient to the whims and fancies of Congress.

But what is even worse, besides being ready to sacrifice individual rights so states can maintain control over their full share of federal highway funds, members of the press apparently find nothing wrong with the method of extortion and blackmail Congress uses to force states to pass laws which are not wanted by the majority of state citizens.

Blackmail and extortion are criminal offenses in the private sector but apparently members of Congress feel they are exempted. With such self-proclaimed immunity from the laws they expect the rest of society to live by, members of Congress boldly wheel and deal using blackmail and extortion to force states to pass unwanted and unnecessary laws. But such arrogance does not seem to incite the ire of a great number of newspaper columnists and editors. They are only upset over the fact states lose control over a certain portion of their federal highway funds because their legislators refuse to take away personal rights by passing certain laws.

In addition to using blackmail and extortion to force states to pass laws, Congress also uses bribery, another criminal offense in the private sector. In the 1991 Transportation Act there are provisions for federal grants (bribes) for states that pass seat belt and helmet laws to be used for enforcement of such laws. That means, states that "sell" their citizens’ freedom to keep fully intact federal highway funds, are also rewarded with grants, and members of the press are not only silent about such blatant tyranny, but castigate state legislators for refusing to join-in the congressional conspiracy to violate the Bill of Rights.

But that is still not the whole sordid story about Congress and the fuel tax laws which create those federal highway funds. Congress not only engages in blackmail/extortion and bribery in the distribution of such funds, but passes such tax laws under false pretenses. When passing laws that establish the amount of the fuel tax per gallon, nowhere in such laws does it say that states must first pass adjunct laws of any kind, such as seat belt or helmet laws, as a condition for receiving back such funds. Such conditions are created by members of Congress only when it comes time to distribute such funds.

The fact is, Congress passes the fuel tax laws with the understanding that such taxes would be returned to the states for road construction and repair needs in each state. In a given year, some states might not receive all of such fuel taxes collected; others might receive even more than what was collected in the state. However, in either case, the return of fuel taxes has nothing to do with the passage of other laws Congress wants the states to pass.

What is equally most interesting, motorcyclists are more politically astute then those of us who driver autos, vans and trucks and, therefore, since the 1991 Transportation Act, motorcyclists across the U.S. have been lobbying members of Congress to rescind that provision in the Act that threatens a loss of control over a certain portion of the federal highway tax funds if a helmet law is not passed. After about 8 years of such lobbying, Congress did finally get the message and rescinded the helmet law penalty as of 1999. This shows what lobbying efforts will do when properly organized and effectively moved in the right direction. The fact is, motorcyclists did some threatening of their own, that is, they singled out those politicians in Congress who supported helmet laws and worked to defect them in the next election, while supporting candidates for office who opposed helmet laws.

While the federal penalty for not passing a seat belt law has been eliminated, and some states have since also repealed their helmet laws, other states still have helmet laws and motorcyclists are narrowing their political attention accordingly. It remains to be seen how successful motorcyclists will continue to be. However, one thing is for sure, those of us who drive autos, vans and trucks are not so politically organized and ,therefore, politicians feel safe in attacking our rights with immunity , that is, so far.



iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Fri, 04-09-2004 - 2:07am
And because I have no desire to share with you the entire 65 page body of research that I presented to the judge, I will let you stew with this final fact finder, that's close to home.

*edited to correct a typo I made in the first paragraph.

FACT-FINDER # 17

Obesity And Seat Belt Laws

According to a news source---

Last November (1993) a federal appeals court ruled for the first time that the Americans With Disability Act (ADA), protecting the rights of the disabled, applied to the obese. In so ruling, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a $100,000 jury award to ,,, a 320-pound woman who sued the State of Rhode Island after she was told she could not return to a state job until she lost weight. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), had earlier declared obesity a protected category and the recent ruling now clears the way for obese people to bring discrimination claims under the ADA.

It certainly is strange that a federal court agrees with the EEOC that obesity, a self-inflected medical hazard that causes many serious medical problems, as well as expenses borne by society, is a protected right while, at the same time, the federal government is forcing states to pass seat belt laws which forces motorists to use seat belt against their will, because, supposedly, not using a seat belt in a traffic accident results in what seat belt law advocates claim is negligence, that is, self-inflected injuries and deaths that are an unnecessary financial burden on society.

In other words, supposedly, not properly taking care of one’s health while in a motor vehicle by not using a seat belt harness, according to the government, is a financial burden on society that must be corrected by the brutal arm of law. However, the same government claims a person has the liberty to be obese as a protected right, which really has no foundation in the Bill of Rights, while the liberty in the Bill of Rights for those persons who ride in autos, vans, and trucks, according to the federal government, are null and void, and such person must use a seat belt in the name of protecting their health, whether they want that protection or not.

Such a contradiction by the federal government is not really new. For decades the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture has spent millions of tax dollars in subsidies to tobacco growers in order to insure their success in the marketplace, while at the same time, the Office of the Surgeon General also has spent millions of tax dollars condemning the use of tobacco and warning people not to use any tobacco products for their health.

This opposition to tobacco products includes congressional legislation greatly restricting advertisement practices of tobacco products and restricting purchases to adults only, along with very severe federal penalties for any violation. Apparently it doesn’t seem to bother members of Congress to fund tax dollars for the Office of the Surgeon General in their quest to discourage tobacco use, and to fund the Dept. of Agriculture in their quest to make the sale of those same tobacco products successful in the marketplace.

And in more recent years, attacks against tobacco use have reached the courts resulting in tobacco companies now are paying hundreds of millions of dollars to various state governments to reimburse them for the cost of medical treatment supposedly paid by those states for medical treatment of diseases associated with the use of tobacco products. What is even stranger and equally contradictory, upon examination of the flow of such legal "booty" from tobacco companies to state governments, very little, if any, of such funds is ever returned to the taxpayers but, instead, finds its way more often in a multiple number of political programs that have nothing to do with the health of citizens in those states.






Edited 4/9/2004 2:09 am ET ET by melodyneve

Avatar for jess9802
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-02-2003
Fri, 04-09-2004 - 3:01am
This seat belt wearin' girl agrees with you. It's hard to find private behavior that does not affect society as a whole. That doesn't mean the government should step in and regulate everything we do.

Avatar for brens2boys
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-29-2003
Fri, 04-09-2004 - 9:29am
You've worded what I believe in so much better then I could have myself...no need to add to yours so just agreeing =)
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2003
Fri, 04-09-2004 - 3:30pm
Well, I wear my seatbelt always because I choose to take advantage of the extra protection. You know the possible consequences of your actions and as a grown woman you have the right to make whatever choice you want.

But girl, just think of the shopping you COULD have done with the $700 you are paying in tickets!!!

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-07-2004
Fri, 04-09-2004 - 3:34pm
especially with coupons and sales!!!!
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-04-2003
Fri, 04-09-2004 - 5:06pm

The only thing I'm paying for my seatbelt ticket is $65 dollars.